“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

Dear Colleague, 

Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India (IMFFI) 

“Key Informant Survey” 

of Production, Value, Losses and Protection 

of Fruit Fly Hosts in India 

Workplan and Data Sheets 

John Stonehouse, Imperial College London 

The objective of the IMFFI Key Informant Survey is to obtain estimates, across the whole of India, 

for the following values:- 

- Production of fruit fly hosts, divided among the major agro-ecological zones 

- Farm-gate prices of fruit fly host produce 

- Losses to fruit flies, host-by-host and zone-by-zone, both with and without fly controls 

- Incidence of controls, host-by-host and zone-by-zone 

- The relative incidence of the major pest species in causing losses, separately for the two 

categories of orchard fruit and cucurbit vegetables 

Preliminary estimates have now been obtained and are being circulated, and all recipients are 

requested to comment on them. The idea is that the numbers so far will be looked at by everybody, 

they will comment, and then the revised numbers will be progressively improved. Please discuss 

these as widely as possible with colleagues and associates, and derive what, in your view, are more 

appropriate or more accurate values, and transmit your corrections to Dr John Stonehouse, IMFFI 

Project Manager, Imperial College London, UK (fax 00-44-1947-841189; e-mail 

j.stonehouse@imperial.ac.uk). 

The principle of this circulating request is that the estimates will become gradually more accurate as 

more and more refining opinions are received and absorbed. It thus uses the principle of Bayesian 

algebra, in which successive estimates, subjective if need be, are used to refine and improve each 

other, and of Delphi consultations, in which opinions are circulated anonymously and discussed 

among a group. 

The estimates follow below. On all pages columns are in pairs - “Initial” columns contain the values 

as estimated so far; “Revised” columns are empty and for the respondents (i.e. you) to write in 

corrections/alterations if you disagree with the “Initial” values. Leave the “Revised” cell empty if you 

do not disagree with the “Initial” value or don’t know anything about it. Production data are 

estimated nationwide, and then estimates attributed to production, loss and protection in the major 

agro-ecological zones into which ICAR divides India. These zones are shown on the map below. 

IMFFI Fruit Fly Key Informant Survey Workplan and Data Sheets – Page 1 of 1

The estimates fall into three categories, on three different data sheets:- 

1. Production and farm-gate value of major hosts nationwide as, host-by-host: 

a - Production volume for the whole of India per annum 

b - Overall average farm-gate price - the price received by the farmer in rupees/KG. 

2. Production and fruit fly losses, host-by-host for each different agro-ecological zone: 

2A - Relative levels of production of each host across zones, estimated by awarding a score of 

“100” to the zone with the greatest level of production of that host, and then others for the other 

zones as a percentage of that. The role of the “Volume” values in Sheet 2 is therefore to allocate the 

RELATIVE incidence of production of different hosts to different areas (the absolute levels of 

production are in Sheet 1). Volume figures are levels of production by that host in that zone as a 

percentage of the production in the zone where it is most abundant. So if Zone A has most 

production it is awarded 100; Zone B may be 80% of A so gets 80; Zone C may be 15% of A so 

gets 15; Zone D may be 30% of Zone A so gets 30; and all the other zones have no production so 

all get 0. Imperial College will then adjust these by adding up the percentages, so of the total 

nationwide production A would account for 100/(100+80+15+30)=44%, B would account for 

80/(100+80+15+30)=36%, C for 15/(100+80+15+30)=7%, D for 30/(100+80+15+30)=13%, 

and the others for 0%. (Enter “0” for cultivation of any host in any zone where cultivation is absent). 

2B - Percentage losses to fruit flies, when hosts are not protected from them in any way. 

2C - Percentage losses to fruit flies, when hosts are protected by local controls as currently in use. 

2D - The percentage incidence of the local controls whose effect is assessed in 2C. “Control 

incidence” in Sheet 2 is the percentage of production of that particular host which is protected 

against fruit flies at farm level. Protection from fruit flies may be provided by controls such as cover 

sprays which are not directed at them, and these should be included 

3. Prevalence in causing damage, relative to each other, of the various major fruit fly species, in the 

two broad categories of orchard fruit pests and cucurbit pests. This is estimated by, in each agroecological 

zone, grading the most prevalent fly species with a score of “100” and the other flies 

present with a prevalence as a percentage of that. Values in Table 3, in other words, are the 

RELATIVE levels of damage caused by different fly species to the two major host groups (fruit and 

cucurbits) in each zone. So, as an example, imagine that in any one particular zone dorsalis is most 

damaging, it is awarded 100, zonata causes about 3/4 of the damage of dorsalis and so it is 

awarded 75%, and correcta causes about a third of the damage of dorsalis and so is awarded 

33%. Imperial College will then attribute damage to the species by adding up the percentages 

awarded, so here overall damage by dorsalis would be 100/(100+75+33)=48%, zonata would be 

75/(100+75+33)=36%, and correcta would be 33/(100+75+33)=16%. As another example, if in 

a given zone the prevalence is of 50% of B cucurbitae, 30% of D ciliatus and 20% of B tau, 

scores would be awarded as “100” for cucurbitae, “60” (30/50) for ciliatus and “40” (20/50) for 

tau. Scoring is done in this way to allow values to be modified while under discussion without 

worrying whether they add up to 100; after the consultation is complete the totals for each species in 


each zone will be divided by the total scores awarded in that zone to obtain final percentage values. 

These values, once collected from all participants, will allow the estimation of losses to flies across 

all hosts and zones. Respondents are requested to provide corrected values where they consider the 

values given to be in error, and next to each provisional, current value there is a vacant cell for the 

entry of corrections. Values which are considered to be correct may be left as they are. Please also 

indicate where a category, such as major host type under (1) or a major pest species under (3), has 

been omitted and needs to be added. 

The map below lists the major agro-ecological zones of India (the external boundaries of India on 

this map have not been authenticated and may not be correct). 

Your assistance in this Study is gratefully appreciated, and will contribute to a useful body of work. 

Best wishes, 

Himalayan Highlands West 

- J&K 

- Himachal 

- Uttaranchal 

Arid/Semi-Arid West 

- Rajasthan 

- Gujarat 

- D&D 

West-Central 

/Lava Plateau 

- Maharashtra 

- MP 

South 

- Goa 

- Karnataka 

- Tamil Nadu 

- Kerala 

Punjab/Ganga Plain 

- Punjab 

- Haryana 

- Delhi 

- UP 

- Bihar 

Bengal Basin 

- West Bengal 

- Assam 

Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 

- Orissa 

- Jharkand 

- Chhatisgarh 

- AP 

Himalayan 

Highlands 

East 

Principal Agroecological Zones of India 

John Stonehouse 


Sheet 1. All-India estimates of volumes of production 

All volume data are lakhs of metric tonnes (1MT=1000kg) per year nationwide. 

All price data are Rupees/KG at the farm gate. 

Volume Price 

Orchard fruit Initial Revised Initial Revised 

Mango 99 10 

Guava 18 6 

Jujube 1.5 6 

Sapota 1 7 

Phalsa 0.5 8 

Peach 0.5 9 

Apricot 0.5 9 

Cucurbits 

Cucumber 28 20 

Muskmelon 30 6 

Watermelon 7 3.5 

Cooking melon 2 5 

Pumpkin 10 3.5 

Bitter gourd 10 15 

Small gourd 8 15 

Ridge gourd 8 5 

Bottle gourd 3.5 5 

Snake gourd 5 7.5 

Sponge gourd 2.5 5 

Chayot/Chao-Chao 2 5 

Ash gourd 10 5 

Sweet gourd 2 10 


Sheet 2. Production and fruit fly losses, host-by-host and zone-by-zone 

A: Relative B: % Loss C: % Loss D: % Control 

Volume Unprotected Protected Incidence 

Product: Mango Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised 

Himalayan Highlands West 2 20 2 40 

Punjab/Ganga Plain 100 6 2 70 

Arid/Semi-Arid West 8 3 1 80 

West-Central/Lava Plateau 25 3 1 80 

South 35 25 3 50 

Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 20 23 3 35 

Bengal Basin 6 23 3 35 

Himalayan Highlands East 

Product: Guava 

1 10 3 30 





South 10 10 2 0 




Product: Jujube 

0 10 2 0 





South 0 10 2 5 




Product: Sapota 

0 10 2 5 





South 20 10 2 5 



Himalayan Highlands East 0 10 2 5 


Product: Phalsa 





South 0 10 2 5 




Product: Peach 





South 0 10 2 35 




Product: Apricot 





South 0 10 2 35 




Product: Cucumber 





South 3 30 10 75 





Product: Muskmelon 





South 10 30 10 75 




Product: Watermelon 





South 80 30 10 75 




Product: Cooking Melon 





South 100 30 10 70 




Product: Pumpkin 





South 40 30 10 60 





Product: Bitter Gourd 





South 100 30 10 70 




Product: Small Gourd 





South 100 15 5 70 




Product: Ridge Gourd 





South 40 10 3 70 




Product: Bottle Gourd 





South 10 30 10 70 





Product: Snake Gourd 





South 80 30 10 70 




Product: Sponge Gourd 





South 20 30 10 70 




Product: Chayot 





South 100 30 10 70 




Product: Ash Gourd 





South 40 30 10 70 





Product: Sweet Gourd 





South 0 30 10 70 




Sheet 3. List of species by relative prevalence in causing losses, as the major economic 

species, and omitting species of niche importance (e.g. Carpomyia vesuviana in jujube, B. 

oleae in olive, Moringa fly, B. latifrons) 

Species B. dorsalis B. zonata B. correcta Other 

Estimate Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised 

ORCHARD FRUIT 

Himalayan Highlands West 40 100 0 

Punjab/Ganga Plain 70 100 2 

Arid/Semi-Arid West 100 70 0 

West-Central/Lava Plateau 100 60 20 

South 100 10 30 

Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 67 100 7 

Bengal Basin 80 100 0 

Himalayan Highlands East 75 100 0 

B. cucurbitae B. tau D. ciliatus Other 

Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised Initial Revised 

CUCURBITS 

Himalayan Highlands West 100 0 5 

Punjab/Ganga Plain 100 0 10 

Arid/Semi-Arid West 100 0 12 

West-Central/Lava Plateau 100 0 12 

South 100 0 12 

Semi-Arid/Semi-Humid East 100 0 4 

Bengal Basin 100 5 0 

Himalayan Highlands East 80 100 0 



Pictorial Record of Wide-Area Study Environments 

Village-level studies were conducted over a variety of ecogeographical regions and 

conditions. To allow meaningful analysis, a photographic record was made of the general 

outlook and conditions in each village, and this Appendix presents two representative images 

of each. 

Thrissur Mango 1 

Thrissur Mango 2 

Thrissur Bitter Gourd 1

Thrissur Bitter Gourd 2 

Thiruvananthapuram Bitter Gourd 1 

Thiruvananthapuram Bitter Gourd 2 

Palanpur Pumpkin 1

Palanpur Pumpkin 2 

Anand Bitter Gourd 1 

Anand Bitter Gourd 2 

Varanasi Bitter Gourd 1

Varanasi Bitter Gourd 2 

Bhubaneswar Bitter Gourd 1 

Bhubaneswar Bitter Gourd 2


Pictorial Record of Laboratory Study Cages 

“Choice-chamber” cages for laboratory studies of baits were made under a variety of 

conditions to the same basic specification. Below is a photograph of each to illustrate 

variation with local conditions. 

Thrissur 

Lucknow 

Bhubaneswar

Anand 

Palanpur 

Varanasi

Navsari 

Thiruvananthapuram

South Asia Fruit Fly Network 

Newsletter 

Collaborative Project 

Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India (IMFFI): 

The Project, its Background and Progress 

Tephritid Fruit Flies 

Fruit flies (in the family Tephritidae, among the “true flies” or Diptera) are destructive pests 

of fruits and cucurbit vegetables (and not to be confused with the better-known 

Drosophilinid fruit flies, which mostly affect over-ripe and fermenting fruit and thus are 

largely economically harmless). After mating with a male, the adult female fly lays eggs into 

a healthy maturing fruit, which develop into maggots which ruin the fruit as it ripens. When 

the maggots are developed, they emerge from the fruit, leaving a round hole, and drop to 

the ground, where they burrow into the soil to form pupae, which develop into young adult 

male and female flies which fly into the vegetation to mate and lay more eggs. 

As they do direct damage to fruit, the part of the crop plant which is harvested for human 

consumption, fruit flies do considerable damage even when present in relatively small 

numbers. Apart from the damage to fruit itself, flies damage export earning potential as 

many destination markets have strict quarantine regulations to prevent fruit flies from 

abroad establishing themselves in local fruit orchards. 

Pest flies in India divide broadly into two groups. One attacks orchard fruit such as mango, 

guava, peach and sapota, and includes major species in the genus Bactrocera (ex-Dacus) 

such as B. zonata, B. dorsalis and B. caryae. The other group attacks cucurbits such as 

melon, cucumber and gourds such as bitter, small, ridge and sponge gourd, and 

comprises largely the melonfly Bactrocera cucurbitae. Although not a hard-and-fast 

pattern, therefore, orchard flies attack relatively high-value and productive fruit crops, some 

of them with export potential, whereas the melonfly attacks vegetables grown in smaller 

and less profitable production systems, often by small farmers for local village markets. 

Controlling Fruit Flies 

As fresh fruits are targets of fruit flies, control using insecticides must be carried out as fruit 

ripen, close to harvest, and thus may leave undesirable residues in/on the fruits. Alternative 

controls are available, however, which exploit the attraction of adults to certain chemicals. 

The first of these is the attraction of all adults to food baits. Newly-emerged young adult

The power of parapheromones. This IMFFI 

parapheromone block trap in a mango orchard 

outside Lucknow, India, contained over 2000 

flies (photo RP Shukla). 

flies have grown up (as maggots inside fruit) 

on a diet poor in protein, and are attracted to 

protein foods. Food baits may be used for 

“Bait Application Technique” or “BAT” control, 

mixed with insecticide and sprayed or 

daubed in the field, and then attract adults to 

their deaths. Baits typically need to be 

replenished weekly to obtain satisfactory 

control throughout the season. 

The second attraction which may be exploited 

is that of some chemicals which act like 

sexual pheromones (and hence are called 

“parapheromones”) and strongly attract adult 

males (though females hardly at all). 

Parapheromones may be used for “Male 

Annihilation Tecnique” or “MAT” control, in 

traps, or soaked into wooden or board 

blocks, with a small amount of insecticide, which attract and kill males; when the males in 

a locality are wiped out the unmated females cannot lay fertile eggs and so fruit are not 

attacked. 

There are two characteristic operational differences between BAT and MAT in their use. 

First, the wooden blocks which may be used for MAT can emit their loads relatively slowly, 

and so obtain a more persistent effect than BAT, lasting for two months or more and, as 

more powerful olfactory attractants than food baits, they may be effective when used more 

widely spaced - at a rate of ten blocks per hectare, for example, in contrast to the 200 baitspots 

per hectare typically used for BAT; as a result of these characteristics, MAT is 

typically much less demanding of labour than BAT and generally cheaper to use. Second, 

effective MAT requires the purchase of manufactured inputs in the form of 

parapheromones, and thus capital investments, whereas BAT may be effectively 

performed, and has been in India for decades, by home-made preparations of common 

foodstuffs such as banana and jaggery widely available on the farm and in its vicinity (the 

common plant Holy Basil or tulsi - Ocimum sanctum - contains methyl eugenol, and is 

widely used for trapping orchard flies in India; IMFFI studies have given cause for doubt, 

however, that tulsi is sufficiently powerful an attractant to exert effective control, and this is 

being checked in the 2005 field season). 

Both BAT and MAT may be presumed to need to be carried out quite thoroughly, and over 

an area larger than a certain minimum size, to be effective. Flies which have fed on protein 

are less likely to be attracted to bait, and so may penetrate areas protected by BAT. 

Similarly, if MAT is not thorough each surviving male may be able to mate successfully with 

several females, and mated females, impervious to parapheromones, may successfully 

penetrate, and attack fruit inside, areas protected by MAT.

The management of the two fruit fly guilds is to a great extent dictated by the fact that the 

parapheromone which attracts the orchard fly guild of B. zonata and its fellows is methyleugenol, 

a well-known chemical manufactured and sold in India as a food flavouring, and 

available at a reasonable price. The parapheromone which attracts the melonfly B. 

cucurbitae on the other hand, is Cue-lure, a more unusual and expensive compound which 

is not manufactured in India (though it may legally be imported). Cue-lure is not 

commercially on sale in India, but an indication of their relative costs may be seen in that 

the UK supplier International Pheromone Systems, which supplied most of the materials 

for IMFFI research, sells a kilogram of methyl eugenol for approximately £18 (eighteen 

British pounds - about 1440 Indian rupees) and a kilogram of cue-lure for £95 (about 7600 

Indian rupees) - more than five times more. As a result of this price difference, it seems 

likely that for the foreseeable future the main line of defence in the control of orchard flies 

may be by methyl eugenol MAT, whereas the main line of defence of cucurbits against the 

melonfly may have to be by BAT using food baits. This is not a clear distinction however: 

MAT management of melonflies by cue-lure is possible, and may be economically 

profitable when cucurbit hosts are of high economic value; conversely, and worryingly, MAT 

management in orchards may not always be successful - when fly populations are large 

not enough males may be killed, and mated females from outside may enter the protected 

area - and in such cases BAT baits may also need to be used against orchard flies. 

The IMFFI Research Strategy 

The IMFFI project is a research project to find the best ways of controlling fruit flies in India 

at farm and field level. It is carried out by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research 

(ICAR) with financial support from the Department for International Development (DFID) 

of the UK Government, through the DFID Crop Protection Research Programme manager, 

NR International Ltd, and technical support from Imperial College London. 

Field research is carried out at eight collaborating ICAR Centres: 

Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), Thrissur, Kerala 

Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 

Navsari Agricultural University (NAU), Gandevi, Gujarat 

Anand Agricultural University (AAU), Anand, Gujarat 

Sardarkrishinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University (SDAU), Palanpur, Gujarat 

Central Horticultural Experiment Station (CHES), Bhubaneswar, Orissa 

(part of the Indian Instiute of Horticultural Research) 

Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 

Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture (CISH), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 

Additionally, the “Knowledge Review” - a desk study to gather and collate all the 

information already known about tephritids and their management in South Asia, is carried 

out at the National Centre for Integrated Pest Management (NCIPM), New Delhi. 

Laboratory studies to optimise the selection of baits for BAT control are also being 

conducted at the ICAR Research Centre for Goa (IRCG). This allows the laboratory studies 

to cover much of India in three clusters of three Centres, each cluster containing two 

Centres studying melonfly, as the most important bait-control target, and one Centre 

studying the local orchard flies.

Cluster “Western” “Southern” “East-Central” 

Melonfly SDAU, Palanpur 

AAU, Anand 

KAU, Thiruvananthapuram 

KAU, Thrissur 

CHES, Bhubaneswar 

IIVR, Varanasi 

Orchard fly NAU, Gandevi IRCG, Goa CISH, Lucknow 

IMFFI research has three main areas of focus:- 

1 - Finding the most attractive and cost-effective baits for farm-level BAT 

Comparing and assessing baits can be conveniently done in the laboratory, using flies 

reared in captivity. IMFFI research places adult flies in large cages, with a choice of 

different baits, to see which attracts and kills the largest numbers of flies. The effectiveness 

of the most promising baits can then be confirmed in the field. For many years fruit flies in 

cucurbits have been managed by application of food baits of banana flesh or jaggery, and 

IMFFI studies currently seem to be confirming that both of these, mixed with insecticide, 

can be as good as imported, protein hydrolysate bait under local conditions, and that more 

exotic additives such as fruit extracts, and mixtures of banana and jaggery together, are 

no more effective than simple banana or jaggery preparations. 

2 - Finding the most cost-effective way to use methyl eugenol for MAT 

The cost-effectiveness of MAT can depend on whether lure is used in wood blocks or 

traps, and factors such as the types of wood and solvent, strength of soaking solution and 

block size. IMFFI research is measuring the effects of all these variables using blocks and 

traps in farmers’ orchards. IMFFI studies have found that in fruit orchards such as mangoes 

and guavas, methyl eugenol, distributed in small wooden blocks soaked in lure and 

insecticide, can be very effective in obtaining MAT control, although this approach requires 

that a minimum area be treated and, if pest pressure is heavy, food baits can be used 

additionally. 

3 - Quantifying the added benefit from fly control at village level 

Consideration of the principle of the operation of both bait (BAT) and lure (MAT) controls 

suggests that they 

should benefit 

substantially from 

being applied in a 

coordinated way by 

all the farms within an 

Cooperative control. 

Farmers in an IMFFI 

study apply fruit fly 

baits throughout an 

entire village outside 

Thrissur, India (photo: 

Jim Thomas).

area such as a village or locality, which should greatly increase the level of protection over 

that obtained when individual farmers act alone. IMFFI studies are comparing the level of 

pest control obtained by BAT and MAT used at farm and village level, by a series of largearea 

experiments at different sites throughout India. These studies have confirmed that, as 

expected, village-level area-wide coordinated control, over an area of one square 

kilometre, increases the level of protection by single-farm-level use, roughly doubling the 

level of protection obtained. This principle may be used for the protection of very large 

areas, and IMFFI scientists propose to test its extension to areas of ten square kilometres 

in Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh in 2005. 

IMFFI and the Establishment of the South Asia Fruit Fly Network (SAFFN) 

On January 10-11, 2005, the Final Review Meeting of the IMFFI Project was carried out, 

at Pusa, New Delhi, hosted by CAB International, under the overall chairmanship of Dr 

Gautam Kalloo, Deputy Director General (Horticulture and Crop Science), ICAR, and Drs 

SN Pandey, the Assistant Director General (Horticulture), ICAR, Abraham Verghese of the 

Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore, the Project Coordinator, and 

John Stonehouse of Imperial College London, the Project Manager. 

The meeting developed a research strategy for the IMFFI research team for the field 

season of 2005, before the Project comes to an end on October 31 st 2005. It also included 

a consultation with specialists from the agricultural research and extension community, 

including cooperatives and the private sector, to discuss requirements for the development 

of “extension-ready” fruit fly management technologies. It closed with the launch of the 

South Asia Fruit Fly Network (www.SouthAsiaFruitFly.net) which will serve as a forum 

for fruit fly workers, farmers and the interested public to communicate with each other, to 

seek, air, share and discuss information and opinions. The Network’s website will 

disseminate the research results and control recommendations arising from IMFFI 

research, and encourage the discussion of all aspects of fruit flies and their management 

in South Asia, through the on-line SAFFN Newsletter, the Fruit Fly Forum bulletin board, 

a list of Connections and Contact to allow fruit fly workers to contact each other, and a 

page of announcements of upcoming events. The Network is hosted by Anand Agricultural 

University, Gujarat, and the site was officially opened by Dr Kalloo on January 11 th , 2005. 

Putting the customer 

first. IMFFI researchers 

discuss village-level fruit 

fly control with gourd 

farmers outside 

Bhubaneswar, India 

(photo: HS Singh).

Indian fruit fly control and the 


A Verghesea , JD Mumfordb and JM Stonehouse b 

(a) Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore, India (b) Imperial College London, Ascot, UK 

E-mail corresponding author: j.mumford@imperial.ac.uk 

Programme 

The project “Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India “ (IMFFI) supports researchers at eight centres in India. The areas are 

representative of a range of horticultural systems within the country and includes work on the major Tephritid fruit flies affecting fruits 

and vegetables: Bactrocera zonata, B. dorsalis, B. cucurbitae. Participating centres: 

• Kerala Agricultural University (KAU), Thrissur and Thiruvananthapuram 

• NavsariAgricultural University (NAU), Gandevi, Gujarat 

• Anand Agricultural University (AAU), Anand, Gujarat 

• Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University (SDAU), Palanpur, Gujarat 

• Central Horticultural Experiment Station (CHES), Bhubaneswar, Orissa 

• Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 

• Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture (CISH), Lucknow , Uttar Pradesh 

Monitoring cucurbit fly damage in Kerala (photo: T Jiji) 

Activities 

Extensive trapping from 2003-2005 established seasonal patterns of fly abundance and damage. Cucurbits are worst 

affected in August, while tree fruit damage is spread throughout the year depending on the fruiting seasons (May for 

mango, July for sapota, December for guava). 

Trials in 2003 and 2004 demonstrated that market quality fruit can be produced from area-wide male annihilation 

control. Further experiments in 2005 are testing this for vegetable fruit flies. Larger scale treatment, 1 km 2 , gave 

double the effectiveness of male annihilation compared to farm -level treatment. Work with Mother Dairy Ltd has been 

examining how cooperative fruit fly control at village-level can be connected with other quality and value adding 

processes (such as grading and packing of produce locally) to increase small farm incomes and improve their 

position in the food supply chain. 

A review of the Indian fruit fly literature has produced abstracts of over 300 reports and published papers in Indian 

journals going back to the 1930s on fruit flies in India. These will be made available to researchers through the webbased 

network. 


The South Asia Fruit Fly Network (www.southasiafruitfly.net) will serve as a forum for fruit fly research. The 

Network’s website will disseminate the research results and control recommendations arising from research in the 

region, and encourage the discussion of all aspects of fruit flies and their management in South Asia, through the 

on-line SAFFN Newsletter, the Fruit Fly Forum bulletin board, a list of Connections and Contacts to allow fruit fly 

workers to contact each other, and a page of announcements of upcoming events. The Network is hosted by Anand 

Agricultural University, Gujarat, and the site was officially opened on 11 January, 2005. 

Assessing damage to pumpkin 

(L) and mango (R) in Gujarat 

(photo: RK Patel) 

Village-level bait application trial 

in Kerala ( photo: J Thomas) 

The human network at 

Delhi, Jan 2005 

Acknowledgement: Work funded by the UK Department for International Development Crop Protection Programme, Project R8840, collaborating with the Indian Council for Agricultural Research 

IAEA-CN- 

131/94P

Village-level suppressive fruit fly management in India: 

Issues determining the optimum scale of cooperative control 

JM Stonehouse a , JD Mumford a , RK Patel b , BK Joshi b , VM Patel b , RC Jhala b , DB Sisodiya b , ZP Patel b , VS Jagadale b , 

J Thomas b , CV Vidya b , T JiJi b , B Nair b , HS Singh b , AK Mohantha b , S Rai b , S Satpathy b , RP Shukla b , A Manzar b and A Verghese b 

(a) Imperial College London, Ascot, UK (b) Indian Council for Agricultural Research, New Delhi, India. 

E-mail corresponding author: j.stonehouse@imperial.ac.uk 

Village Cooperative Control 

There are often benefits to the coordinated, suppressive control of pests over an area larger than an individual farm, but smaller those used for highly coordinated, high-technology 

applications such as SIT. This study evaluated the returns to fruit fly management at the scales of the “farm” and of the “village” in India, and found that village-level application had 

approximately double the effectiveness of farm-level application. Interviews and discussions examined the social features making cooperative control sustainable at village level. 

Five Keys to Sustainability 

1 - Farm Size Among large farms the number of farmers needed to obtain cooperative control is 

relatively small. Among very small farms only cooperative control may be effective, as immediate 

reimmigration from neighbouring plots undermines farm-level controls. 

2 - Problem Seriousness Sustainable cooperative control must overcome inertia, apathy and 

suspicion. The perception of the problem as serious is particularly important in overcoming this. 

3 - Shared Economy Sustainable cooperative control is enhanced when it can be “grafted” or 

“piggybacked” onto other cooperative activities - such as marketing or buying inputs – rather than begun 

from scratch. 

4 - Social cohesion Some mutual trust is highly important. Farmers tend to trust cooperatives’ 

recommendations for cultivation when these also buy their produce, as the farmer can see a vested 

interest by the cooperative in the success of production rather than the sale of the input. 

5 – Tolerance of Imperfection “Forgivingness” of incomplete application of area-wide controls, so 

their effect is not destroyed by a few isolated untreated areas, is important where there are truculent 

individuals who will not cooperate with a group effort. When cooperative control aims to be suppressive, 

rather than eradicative, private control by each individual can still obtain a return, regardless of the 

participation of neighbours, undermining the “free rider” strategy. This “forgivingness” is a function of the 

ecology of pests which are relatively “K-selected”, such as fruit flies, rather than “r-selected” such as 

hemiptera. 

Farmers were interviewed singly and 

in groups (photo: HS Singh) 

Cooperatives which buy 

produce are trusted to 

provide inputs 

(photo: J Stonehouse) 

Cooperative pest management sits naturally alongside cooperative 

marketing (photos: J Thomas) 

Acknowledgement: Work funded by the UK Department for International Development Crop Protection Programme, Project R8840, collaborating with the Indian Council for Agricultural Research 

IAEA-CN- 

131/92P

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIES IN INDIA (IMFFI) SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW 

SURVEY OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLE GROWERS 

Interviewers:- 

Overall - JMS - John Stonehouse; AV - Abraham Verghese 

Sardarkrushinagar - RKP - RK Patel; BKJ - BK Joshi; RKC - RK Chowdhury 

Anand - RCJ - RC Jhala; DBS - DB Sisodiya 

Ghandevi - ZPP - ZP Patel; VSJ - VS Jagadale; MBP - MB Patel 

Thrissur - JT - Jim Thomas; CVV - CV Vidya 

Thiruvananthapuram - JR - Jiji Rajmohan; AN - Anne Napoleon; 

MS - M Senthilkumar; BN - Beena Nair 

Bhubaneswar - HSS - HS Singh; ASK - Ashok Kumar Mohantha JMS 

Varanasi - SR - S Rai, SS - S Swamy, SPS - S Satpathy 

Lucknow - RPS - R.P.Shukla; AM - Abu Manzar 

@~S - SARDARKRUSHINAGAR. 

#S001 DATE:03/03/03 TEAM: RKP/BKJ Village: Nizampura. Large/wealthy farmer. I had not 

my own farm but hired for seasons. Total area is 13 hectares. Eight members depend on 

it. My family feed farm harvest for whole year and I have no other job out side the 

farming. 

CROPS Pumpkin with other cucurbitaceous crop. I had started growing pumpkin since 

last three years because my cousin are growing it from last ten years. It performed 

satisfactory when I grow it first time. It gives high return if market price is good. 

There is no market in nearby area. 

PEST 1 - HELIOTHIS It becomes a problem as it enters into the fruit and inner fleshy 

content on it. This year infestation is not heavy. It reduces yield. 

PEST 2 - FRUIT FLIES It causes 20 to 30 % losses in crop. Its attack starts from 

formation size fruit in pumpkin crop. Its attack reduces the yield. This year damage 

is less due to low rainfall during previous year. The main different of its 

infestation is that it reduce market price as it affect on market quality. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL I had sprayed the crop with Dimethoate @20 ml /15 liter of water. I 

had started it because my neighbour was used it. It gave a bit good results as it can 

not control the fruit fly completely. I had never used this MAT or BAT control. 

#S002 DATE:03/03/03 TEAM: RKP/BKJ Village: Nizampura. Large/wealthy farmer. I had not 

my own farm but hired for seasons. Total area is 10 hectares. Six members depend on 

it. My family feed farm harvest for whole year and I have no other job out side the 

farming. 

CROPS Pumpkin with other cucurbitaceous crop. I had started pumpkin growing since 

last five years because my parents were growing it. It performed well when I grow it 

first time. The main advantage of this crop is it has long storage life. There is no 

local market. 

PEST 1 - HELIOTHIS Become a problem as it reduces the yield. This year infestation is 

medium. 

PEST 2 - APHIDS & SUCKING INSECTS Its infestation shrank the leaves. 

PEST 3 - FRUIT FLIES It causes30 to 40 % losses in crop. Its attack starts from 

formation size fruit pumpkin crop. Its attack reduces yield. This year damage is less 

due to low rainfall during previous year. The main different of its infestation is 

that yield losses is high as compare to other pest. It is very difficult to control 

IMFFI Semi-Structured Interview Survey - 1 of 66

this pest by only chemical means. I had never used either MAT or BAT in past. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL I had sprayed the crop with Metasystox @25 ml /15 liter of water. I 

had started it because the shopkeeper me advised to use it. It gave poor results as 

it can not eradicate the fruit fly infestation. I had never used this MAT or BAT 

control. 

#S003 DATE:03/03/03 TEAM: RKP/BKJ Village: Nizampura. Medium farmer. I had not my own 

farm but hired for seasons. Total area is 6 hectares. Four members depend on it. My 

family feed farm harvest for whole year and I have no other job out side the farming. 

CROPS Pumpkin with tomato. I had started pumpkin growing since last two years because 

other farmer of my state Uttar Pradesh are growing it. It performed satisfactory when 

I grow it first time. It gives high return if market price is good. There is no 

market in nearby area. 

PEST 1 - HELIOTHIS It damage the fruit and reduces yield as well as market value. 

This year infestation is heavy. It reduces yield. 

PEST 2 - FRUIT FLIES It causes 15 to 20 % losses in crop. Its attack starts from 

formation size fruit. Its attack reduces yield. This year damage is very less due to 

low rainfall during previous year. The main difference of its infestation is that it 

reduces market price as it affect on market quality. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAY I had sprayed the crop with Endosulfan @22 ml /15 liter of 

water. I had started it because the shopkeeper advised me to use it. It gave poor 

results as it can not control the fruit fly. I had never used this MAT or BAT control 

in past. 

#S004 DATE:03/03/03 TEAM: RKP/BKJ Village: Nizampura. Far away from farm S001; 

small/poor farmer. I had not my own farm but hired for seasons. Total area is 1 

hectare. Five members depend on it. My family feed farm harvest for whole year and I 

have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Pumpkin with bitter gourd. I had started pumpkin growing since last year 

because my parents were growing it. It performed medium when I grow it first time. 

The main advantage of this crop is it has long storage life but, there is no local 

market. 

PEST 1 - HELIOTHIS It become a problem as it reduces the yield. This year infestation 

is not heavy. 

PEST 2 - FRUIT FLIES It causes 20 to 30% losses in crop. Its attack starts from the 

initiation of flowering. So, the flowers detached from the vine. So there is 

reduction in yield. This year damage is average due to low rainfall previous year. 

The main difference of its infestation is that it reduces yield. It is very difficult 

to control this pest by only chemical means. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL I had not sprayed any insecticide for the control of fruit fly. 

#S005 DATE:06/02/04 TEAM: RKP/BKJ/RKC/JMS Village: Nizampura (wide-area village 'A'); 

{There has been a very cold winter now - after ten years of normal winters this has 

been both long and cold. As a result, the pumpkins are completely unattacked & 

unblemished. All pests are at low levels. He lives in a beautifully decorated painted 

mud house, with sculpted mud shelves and storage spaces inside. {Feedback from these 

farmers is good. Muslims. Immigrants. In one sqkm are 11 families, 150 people. All 

came from UP (District: Bareli), 30 years ago now. Now they are all Gujeratis but 

their mother tongue still hindi. All 11 families - they have known each other for 30 

years. If they find more land on a for-hire basis they call in other people in UP. 


They used to be nearer Ahmedabad, and moved here. Always renting.} 

PUMPKIN PRICES Farmer and RKP confer about the market for pumpkin. Pumpkin price is, 

contrary to basic economic principles, highest when the fruit is most scarce - it is 

highest when demand is greatest which for cultural reasons is during the wedding 

season. During weddings round here is pumpkin is used for feasts, particularly mixed 

with melon flesh into a fruit salad known as “tutti frutti”. {Later JS is told that 

tutti frutti is also popular in UP - also pehta} 

PUMPKIN PESTS Fruit fly is less than last year. Helicoverpa or heliothis too - 

caterpillars on the cucurbits. He is using cymbush to control them. Larvae on the 

leaves. Were also bad last year. This year the green larvae are more than last year. 

Helicoverpa inside the flowers. 

PUMPKIN SPRAYS The pumpkin now is just starting to flower and bud. Planted in 

November (last week of).When did the helicoverpa turn up? A month ago. How many 

cymbush sprays have you had to do? Every 15 or 10 days throughout the whole season. 

Already done 4 cymbush sprays. 15ml of cymbush in 12 litres of water. Last year used 

it too - at the same rate. So as far as cymbush use goes was last year about the same 

as this year? It doesn't control fruit flies. Nor helicoverpa, really - 'a few days 

control only.' Neither cymbush nor endosulfan will control helicoverpa {in India 

helicoverpa insecticide resistance has risen by 300 times}. 

GOURD UPTAKE Gourds and tomatoes are grown by everybody. Gourds catch on, and then 

everybody grows. Now even native farmers are following them. 

PUMPKIN MARKETS Pumpkins won't sell here - sometimes in Surat - but sell to 

Rajasthan, Delhi, Jodhpur etc etc. 

FRUIT FLY INFESTATION PROGRESS Fruit fly is only a little. Yes, but won't it get 

going? Yes, it will. But we'll be ready for it. Now cucurbits are a bit late. 

ROTATION DELAYS Last year they had cluster bean in these fields. Gourds go in after 

the harvest of cluster bean, so held up by the bean (1) and also by the cold, slowing 

growth (2). 

GOURD VARIETY Is pumpkin the only gourd grown? No - bottle g, bitter g, ridge g, 

smooth g; also last time sponge g and sweet melon (very badly attacked by fruit fly). 

Also leaf miner on cucurbits, but not economically damaging. 

CASTOR BEAN Castor cultivation is going up. It can be grown rainfed. Rs325/20kg - the 

best price of all crops; and it can be exported - castor oil. 

#S006 DATE:06/10/04 TEAM: RKP/BKJ/RKC/JMS Village: Nizampura (wide-area village 'A'); 

{The team sets out to talk to the friendly farmers who hosted the village-level 

trial. They have moved on, taking up rental of land a good deal further away, and 

half a day is spent in making contact. Their new site is much more remote, and seems 

even more arid, but they say they moved here to take up opportunities so it has been 

a step up, not down. When the team arrives, and with only limited time to stay, only 

the headman’s son, 18, is there. He explains that the wide-area management was a 

success and they were all impressed. He is unsure if the group will adopt it 

themselves. The impression is that the fruit fly is not really serious enough to 

justify the physical and social effort. Part of their nomadic wanderings from one 

rental to another may be as a pest-escape mechanism, as the pests seem to get worse 

in any one area after vegetable cultivation for a few years. It may be that this is 

successful, as fruit flies are not being much of a problem just now.} 

#S007 19/01/05 TEAM BKJ/RKP/JMS. {A very remote area. Nomad women on the road wear 

jewellery like suits of armour - upper and lower arms encased in sheets of silver 


angle, with ornamentation like chain mail.} 

GOURD DAMAGE RESPONSE He has started growing pumpkin. The first flush of fruit is 

fewer fruits, but they are bigger, so get the best price. Larger gourds recover from 

pest attack. Smaller ones can be overcome and die and be lost. 

PUMPKIN IRRIGATION WATER NEEDS He used to grow wheat and castor, but the labour 

demands for pumpkin are much less than for wheat/castor. Wheat needs 6/7 irrigations, 

Per unit of water, pumpkin will cover 4-5 acres, wheat only 1 acre. Labour needs are 

less. And less lumpy. 

WEEDS IN WHEAT Are weeds a problem in wheat? Some - he has few problems- plant the 

crop in rows, plough between. You can use 24D herbicide but death to dicots - you 

must be careful to clean the sprayer before using it in another crop. And 24d only 

possible when wheat at certain stages - problems if your timing is wrong. 

@~A - ANAND {Earlier Anand was the taluka place of Kheda district but recently Anand 

got the status of district. Farmers of Anand and Kheda districts are growing tobacco, 

banana, paddy, brinjal, small gourd, bitter gourd, potato, bajra, ground nut and 

cotton etc. The area under small gourd and bitter gourd cultivation is more in the 

Kheda district, just 75 km away from the headquarters (GAU, Anand), so interviews 

were conducted there.} 

#A001 DATE:3/10/03 TEAM: RCJ/DBS Village Kachhai, Dist. Kheda - small gourd village. 

He is a big farmer. He has 20ha land out of which 10ha is occupied by small gourd 

crops, while the other 10ha land is occupied by paddy-wheat-paddy. He has to feed 15 

family members. He gets income for 10 months from small gourd. He also does the 

business of small gourd. He collects/purchases the small gourds from small farmers 

and supplies to big market like Bombay, Surat, Rajkot, Ahmedabad etc. Thus he is 

earning good money from his farming. 

CROPS He is growing mainly small gourd, paddy and wheat. 

SMALL GOURD Since 40 years he and his brother are growing small gourd. He does not 

know how first time this crop was introduced in the village, but as this is a much 

more profitable crop compared to other crops, the rest of the farmers have also 

adopted it. As people started to grow this crop, they realized it is a remunerative 

crop. He said there is also a limited or no pest problem as compared to other crops, 

and at the same time it gives year-round income (approximately 10 months, from 

January to October). He planted the crop at distances of 1.5m between two rows and 

0.8m between two plants. 

SMALL GOURD PESTS He said since 40 years fruit fly and fruit borer (Diaphania indica) 

are posing the pest problem in small gourd. However since 2 to 3 years the melon 

weevil (Acythopeus curvirostris sp. citrulli) is found as a minor pest. 

FRUIT FLY He planted the crop in January. It bears fruits in February-March. He said 

that the fruit fly (locally called "Bhamari") infestation starts in February-March, 

it reaches a peak in April-May and then it slowly declines. He further added that 

when numbers of fruits are less, the infestation by fruit fly will be more. According 

to him as there is increase in heat, the fruit fly (Bhamari) infestation increases. 

He said fruit fly cause 40-50% damage at peak activity. Otherwise 5-10% damage is 

common. As per his view, since last five years, the fruit fly infestation has 

decreased and he doesn't know the reason. He knows that this pest is serous because 

it causes direct damage to the produce hence, quality reduced and causes direct 

economical loss as explained by him. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROLS He knows two methods for fruit fly control. 


FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAYS (i) Spraying of insecticides viz., fenthion (lebaycid), 

dichlorvos (Nuvan) by mixing with jaggery solution 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (ii) Fruit fly trap. He is using methyl eugenol and 

dichlorvos (Nuvan) both mixed together. The cotton swab is soaked in the mixture and 

placed in the plastic bottle. He doesn't know the exact quantity of ME & DDVP he is 

using, but he is using the trap every year. As per his views, spraying of 

insecticides mainly fenthion is giving good results rather than traps. When we have 

approached him to conduct experiments on his farm regarding evaluation of ply-wood 

blocks, he was convinced and expressed his readiness. When he show flies caught in 

traps next week mainly in cue lure trap, he was very happy and many of the farmers of 

that village have asked to give more traps. 

FRUIT BORER (Diaphania indica) He said that pest incidence start from onset of 

monsoon i.e. from July onward and the incidence remains at peak during 

August-September. According to his view, 30-40% damage is caused by this pest. He is 

observing this pest since 15-20 years. He is mainly using insecticides viz., 

dichlorvos and monocrotophos to control this pest. 

PADDY He is growing paddy since long back. His forefathers were also growing the 

paddy crop. He follows the cropping system paddy-wheat-paddy. As the farmer is facing 

the problem of stagnation of water during monsoon, the paddy is only crop in low 

land. The farmer is raising the seedlings in advance, and transplants the paddy as 

and when enough rainfall is available. 

PADDY PESTS He said that paddy is infested by plant hoppers (locally called "Chusia", 

he doesn't know the species), stem borers, leaf folder, root worms etc. According to 

him, plant hoppers attack the crop during July-August, then the attack of stem borer 

and leaf folder start. Brown plant hopper and leaf folder have caused havoc in the 

current year. Paddy crop is totally destroyed and farmers have asked the government 

authority for provision of crop insurance. It shows the severity of the pest problem 

in paddy. The problem faced by the farmers is also published in local newspapers. 

PADDY PEST CONTROL He said there is no alternative of insecticide to control pests of 

paddy. He applied granular insecticide viz., phorate 10G and carbofuran 3G at the 

time of planting of paddy. He said this practice keeps the crop free from pests up to 

50-60 days. Then in standing crop according to severity of pests, he applied 

insecticides viz., monocrotophos, endosulfan, dichlorvos, chlorpyriphos. 

#A002 DATE:3/10/03 TEAM RCJ/DBS Village Kachhai, Dist. Kheda - small gourd village. 

He is a medium farmer. He has 2.5ha land out of which 1ha land is occupied by small 

gourd, 1.0ha land by paddy-wheat-paddy and 0.5ha by brinjal and other vegetable 

crops. He has to feed 6 family members in the family. He is doing business of milk in 

the village. He is collecting the milk from the village and give price based on fat 

content. He is selling the milk in the city area and earning good amount of money. 

CROPS He is growing small gourd, paddy, brinjal, wheat. 

SMALL GOURD He is growing this crop since 50 years. When I asked about history of 

this crop, he said that our forefathers were growing local small gourd (similar to 

wild species) variety but it gave low production. Then some farmers brought the 

cuttings so called "English" variety (small gourd having long pale green fruits) of 

small gourd at the price of 50 paisa/peace of 12 inch from Bodal village near by 

Anand and started to grow so called English variety of small gourd. It performed very 

well and recorded higher yield compared to local small gourd. This is the story of 25 

years back. So since 25 years, he is growing this variety of small gourd. He planted 

the crop at a distance of 1.5m between two rows and 0.75m between two plants in 

January month. He said this crop needs hard work as well as money for preparation of 

the pandal, insecticides, weeding, fertilizer, irrigation as well as for land 


preparation. However, compared to other crop this crop is better as it gives return 

for 10 months in the year, he said. 

PESTS He said since 50 years, he observed the fruit fly, fruit borer (Diaphania) and 

chharo (fruit skin becoming rough) {though it is not a pest problem}. 

FRUIT FLY He said fruit fly is attacking small gourds since he is growing the crop. 

He further added that this pest is severe when less number of fruits /plant were 

observed and at that time price of the fruits is also higher (Rs.200-300/20kg). This 

happens in April-May. Afterward pest incidence decline. We asked reason why it 

happened so? He replied that it is due to heat/temperature. According to his view, 

this is a notorious pest as it directly attacks the fruits and makes it unfit for 

human consumption and ultimately causes yield loss. According to him, it causes 

20-30% loss during the season. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods for fruit fly control. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAY (i) Spraying insecticides He used insecticides viz., 

dichlorvos (Nuvan), dimethoate (Rogor), imidacloprid (Confidor), fenthion (Lebaycid) 

and jaggery for spraying in small gourd. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (ii) Hanging of sex pheromone traps. As advised by shop 

keeper, he hung containing cotton swab soaked in methyl eugenol and DDVP (dichlorvos) 

mixture. He doesn't know about the exact quantity of ME + DDVP that he is using. He 

directly put the ME & DDVP on the cotton swab and put the same in the empty metal 

containers (particularly of container used to pack chewing tobacco of Babul brand). 

According to his opinion, in the early stage of the crop when vine are small, there 

will be a wastage of insecticide if you spray. But if you hang the ME trap it 

directly kills all the flies and you get the good results. He doesn't know which 

flies are coming inside the trap and which flies are infesting his small gourd crop. 

When shown the results of the Cue lure traps placed in the field of interviewee A001, 

he is really impressed and requests us to give traps. 

FRUIT BORER He said the pest attacks the crop when rainfall start. According to him, 

it bores into fruit and also feeds on leaves. He observed the severity of the pest 

during September. According to him it causes damage up to 40% when reach to peak. He 

is observing this pest since 20 years. He had sprayed imidacloprid, dimethoate and 

dichlorvos to control this pest. 

CHHARO (FRUIT SKIN BECOMING ROUGH) {Actually this is not a pest problem but farmers 

have misunderstood - it is due to covering/adhering of fruit with leaf during rainy 

season. The fruit growing in the axil of leaf, adhered with leaf and that area become 

rough. So he said it is "Chharo" (a disease symptom).} This happens mainly during the 

monsoon when there is good vegetative growth. 

PADDY He is growing paddy in 1.0ha land from which he meets the requirement of rice 

as well as fodder for animals. 

PADDY PESTS He said, immediately after planting the paddy is attacked by root worms, 

followed by hoppers, leaf folder, stem borer, skipper etc. 

PADDY PEST CONTROL He has sprayed insecticides viz., monocrotophos, dimethoate and 

dichlorvos in paddy fields to control leaf folders and hoppers, while to control root 

worms, he broadcast phorate (Thimet) 10G and carbofuran (Furadan) 3G. 

BRINJAL He said he is growing this vegetable crop grown for selling as well as for 

his own utilization. 

BRINJAL PESTS The farmer is facing the problem of Aphid, Jassid, whitefly, shoot and 


fruit borer, little leaf (a mycoplasma disease) in brinjal. 

BRINJAL PEST CONTROL He said there is no pest-wise strategy. However according to 

him, spraying of insecticides is best to reduce the pest pressure quickly. He sprayed 

endosulfan, dichlorvos, dimethoate as per advised by pesticide shop keeper. 

#A003 DATE:3/10/03 TEAM RCJ/DBS Village Parsotaj, Dist. Kheda - small gourd village. 

He is a medium farmer, has 2.5ha total land, out of which he is growing small gourd 

in 1.25ha. He has 10 family members and all are engaged in farming activity. 

CROPS He is growing small gourd, bajra and Fenugreek. 

SMALL GOURD He is growing local variety of small gourd since 20 years. He started 

growing crop by seeing other farmers who were growing small gourd and earning more 

from small gourd cultivation as compared to other crops. He also said that this crop 

gives remuneration up to 10 months. It is just like a buffalo, keeping which gives 

milk every day and thereby earning up to 10 months. He said there is minimum 

requirement of insecticides and no other agricultural operations viz., threshing, 

harvesting, winnowing etc., hence this crop is good. 

SMALL GOURD PESTS Since 15 years, he is facing the problem of fruit fly, fruit borer 

and aphid attack in small gourd. 

FRUIT FLY He said due to fruit fly infestation, 25-30% fruits get damaged and lost. 

He knows that this pest causes direct damage to fruit. He further added, due to 

increase in temperature during April-May, the infestation of this pest increases. 

When we asked about reason for such condition, he said it is not in our hand, it 

depends on power of the God. According to him every year problem of this pest remain 

more or less same. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two approaches of fruit fly control: 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAYS (i) Spraying of insecticides: He knows this method since he 

started cultivating small gourd. He has sprayed, Rogor (dimethoate) for the control 

of this pest and got the good results. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (ii) Sex pheromone traps: He had also hung the methyl 

eugenol traps last year in the pandal. He used Methyl eugenol 5-10 drops and 5 drops 

of DDVP incorporated in the cotton swab and placed inside the plastic bottle/empty 

container. He said since 2-3 years, he is using this traps, however every year he is 

not using the traps. {This year he has not put up his own trap. We have conducted the 

experiment in his farm and he is happy with the results.} 

FRUIT BORER He said particularly during August-September this pest is a headache for 

him. It directly feeds on fruits and leaves. According to him, one larva can bore 

into more than one fruits and can causes damage up to 30-40% in two months. For the 

control of this pest, he sprayed insecticides viz., dimethoate (Rogor), monocrotophos 

and endosulfan. 

APHID He said during the earlier period (means immediately after planting) this pest 

("Molo" which is local name of aphid) attacks his crop. It means when new 

creepers/vines climb up on pandal during February-March, aphid attacks the crop. He 

used to spray Rogor (dimethoate) which reduce the aphid attack. 

BAJRA He said this crop is staple food for him. He is growing bajra two times, i.e. 

in summer and kharif/monsoon season of a year. Grains are utilized for family 

consumption, while fodder is utilized for his cattle and buffaloes. He said that he 

prepares "Rotalo" (local name of chapatti) out of flour. The family member eat Rotalo 

with cooked vegetables. {John S also tasted "Rotalo" prepared by a girl from Bajra 


flour while he visited Vansar village during his visit at Anand.} 

FENUGREEK He is growing this leafy vegetable mainly for selling. After 25-30 days of 

germination, crop plants are uprooted, made into bunches and sent to the market of 

Mahemadabad (a nearby small city) for sale. 

FENUGREEK PESTS He said there is no pest problem in this crop. 

#A004 DATE:3/10/03 TEAM: RCJ/DBS Village Parsotaj, Dist. Kheda - small gourd village. 

He is a small farmer having 1.5ha of land out of which 0.5ha is occupied by small 

gourd, while in the rest of the land he grows other crops as mentioned above. He has 

15 family members and he has to feed all from this land. So some family members are 

doing labour work and earning the money and meet their requirement. 

CROPS He is growing small gourd, Bajra, Fenugreek, Wheat, Cauliflower. 

SMALL GOURD He said, he is growing local variety of small gourd since 15-20 years. 

Upon asking "why you are growing this crop?" he said this crop is giving good 

remuneration round the year and all people are growing, so I have adopted it. He also 

said this crop is good in small land holding. He planted the crop at a distance of 

1.5m between two rows and 0.5m between two plants. 

SMALL GOURD PESTS He said this crop is infested by fruit fly, fruit borer, melon 

weevil, aphids and termite. He is facing the termite problem every year. 

FRUIT FLY He is facing the problem of this pest since 10 years and before that, 

problem was less as per his views. He said due to infestation of this pest, there is 

reduction of yield and it cause economical losses. He said that due to attack of 

fruit fly, fruit get rotted and "Kida" (maggots) are moving inside. As per his 

experience with this crop, he said that the infestation is ranging from 5 to 50% and 

peak infestation is observed during March-April. He said depending upon the year, the 

infestation activity goes up and down. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods for fruit fly control 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAY (i) Spraying of insecticides. He sprayed his crop with Nuvan 

(dichlorvos) at peak activity of fruit fly. He selected the insecticide as suggested 

by shop keeper/insecticide dealer. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (ii) Sex pheromone traps He used fruit fly traps last year. 

He used methyl eugenol and Nuvan (dichlorvos) purchased from shop keeper at 

Mahemadabad (Dist. Kheda), soaked the cotton plug in the mixture and placed inside 

the plastic bottle. He has not followed exact measurement. He said that cotton should 

be completely wet, that much quantity he used. He knows this practice since 10 years. 

FRUIT BORER He said that this is also a next serious pest after fruit fly and attack 

during monsoon period. He said that the larva feeds on fruits as well as leaves. 

According to him, it can cause damage up to 25-30% during August-September. However, 

he has not sprayed any insecticide for the control of this pest and left it to 

nature/God as such. When asked the reason "why you have not sprayed insecticides?" he 

said that all the farmers says that this pest is not controlled by any insecticide 

and there is no meaning of spraying insecticide. 

MELON WEEVIL This is new pest observed since 2 years in this area as reported by him. 

Its population is negligible, hence he is not spraying any insecticide to control 

this pest. {We have collected adults and tried to identify based on available 

published literature. It seems to be Acythopeus curvirostris sp. citrulli. This is 

the first record of this pest in Gujarat.} This pest is locally called as "Chanchvu". 

It bores into fruits with its beak. It makes about 50-60 punctures on fruit. It also 


ores the vine from tender portion, hence the vine from that point onward dry-off. 

APHID He said that this pest is damaging the crop in the early stage. He said that 

Spray of Rogor (dimethoate) once or twice during the season control the pest. 

TERMITE He said that this pest is severe in his field, feed on root and plant die 

suddenly. He is using insecticides viz., endosulfan and chlorpyriphos for managing 

this pest as per advice by shop keeper/insecticide dealer. 

BAJRA He said that bajra is staple food for him. Fodder is utilized for cattle. He 

said there is no pest problem in bajra. 

FENUGREEK According to him, he is growing this crop(leafy vegetable) to get more 

money within a short time as this crop can be up-rooted after 25-30 days of 

germination. He said no pest problem in this crop. 

WHEAT He is growing wheat after paddy. He keeps some quantity for his own 

utilization, while rest is sold in the market. He said no any pest problem in wheat 

except termite. For the control of this pest, he is drenching the endosulfan or 

chlorpyriphos with irrigation water in the field. 

CAULIFLOWER He is growing cauliflower since 5 years. It is also a good crop of short 

duration. Diamondback moth (farmer says "lili iyal") is mainly infesting the crop. He 

is using insecticides viz., monocrotophos, Bacillus thuringiensis based product for 

the control of this pest. 

#A005 DATE:3/10/03 TEAM:RCJ/DBS Village Parsotaj, Dist. Kheda - small gourd village. 

He has a total 3.0ha land and has to feed 17 persons in the family. He has cultivated 

1.0ha small gourd, while rest of the land is occupied by other crops mentioned above. 

Up to 10 months, he gets the income from small gourd. For rest of the months, he 

depends on leafy vegetables for money and thereby he meet the requirement of the 

family. Some family members are also doing labour work in the fields of big farmers. 

CROPS He is growing small gourd, smooth gourd, bajra, fenugreek and coriander. 

SMALL GOURD He is growing this crop since 40-50 years. He said, this crop is giving 

good remuneration so he is growing this crop. Every day he is getting income from 

this crop. 

SMALL GOURD PESTS He said this crop is infested by fruit fly, fruit borer and aphid. 

FRUIT FLY He said this pest is attacking small gourd, since 40-50 years that is since 

he started growing the crop. He said the pest incidence is ranging from 5-50%, and 

due to pest attack the whole fruit becomes rotted and maggots are seen moving inside. 

According to him the incidence is found at peak during April-May and increasing as 

heat increases. He also said that the level of incidence differ in different year. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods of fruit fly control: 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAYS (i) Spraying of insecticide. He used the insecticides viz., 

monocrotophos, Nuvan (dichlorvos), endosulfan, imidacloprid (Confidor) as per advice 

given by shop keeper/insecticide dealer. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (ii) Sex pheromone traps. He used methyl eugenol and 

dichlorvos mixture soaked in cotton swab and placed in the plastic bottle/container. 

He is using this method since 4-5 years. He is not following exact dose of ME + DDVP. 

FRUIT BORER He said this is a serious pest and remains only for 2 months and causes 

damage up to 30-35%. According to him there is no alternative except insecticidal 

spray to control this pest. He use to spray insecticides viz., monocrotophos, 


dimethoate (Rogor), chlorpyriphos, fenvalerate to manage this pest. 

APHID For the control of aphid, he sprayed dimethoate in the initial stage of the 

crop. 

SMOOTH GOURD He has grown smooth gourd at a distance of 2m between two rows and 1m 

between two plants. According to him this is also a remunerative crop but it gives 

income for shorter period (4 months) compared to small gourd. He is growing this crop 

since 10 years. He said this crop is mainly infested by fruit fly. He also observed 

damage up to 40-50% in this crop. He has sprayed insecticides viz., monocrotophos, 

Nuvan (DDVP), endosulfan. He also hung the methyl eugenol traps suggested by a shop 

keeper. 

BAJRA He is growing this crop for family consumption and fodder is utilized for 

cattle and buffaloes. He said that there is no pest problem in this crop. 

FENUGREEK AND CORIANDER Both of these are leafy vegetables and also short duration 

crops. After up-rooting the plants, he sells the produce in the market and earns 

money. He said both of these crops has no pest problem. 

#A006 DATE 3/10/03 TEAM RCJ/DBS Village Hariyala, Dist. Kheda. He is a medium farmer 

having total 3.0 ha land out of which 1.0 ha land is occupied by bitter 

gourd-cauliflower system, while rest of the land is occupied by paddy- wheat-bajra. 

Sometime, he also follow fenugreek (November-December)-bitter gourd (January-October) 

system. He has to feed 7 person. He said that up to 10 months, he is getting income 

from bitter gourd, while in rest of the period of a year, he depends on other 

vegetable crops viz., cauliflower, fenugreek etc. He said that from a hectare of 

land, his gross income from bitter gourd crop is Rs. 2.5 lakh and market price is 

ranging from Rs. 70 (June -September) to 400 (February - March and October)/20 kg. 

CROPS He said that he is growing bitter gourd, cauliflower, fenugreek, paddy, wheat 

and bajra 

BITTER GOURD He said that he is growing this crop since 40-50 years. He adopted this 

crop by seeing other people who are earning the good money by cultivating this crop. 

According to his views, this crop is giving good return and is a cash crop. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS He said that initially crop is attacked by leaf hoppers then by 

fruit fly and during monsoon the fruit borer (Diaphania indica) locally known as 

"Lili Iyal". He said that these pests are found since he is growing the crop i.e. 

since 40-50 years. 

FRUIT FLY He said that generally he is growing the bitter gourd in December-January 

months. The fruit fly infestation start as and when fruits are available. Initially 

it can cause more than 50% damage as fruits are available in small number. He said 

that it is bad because it directly cause damage to the fruits. According to his view, 

every year the problem of fruit fly remain same. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods for fruit fly control. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAY (1) Spraying of insecticides He had sprayed his crop with 

insecticides viz., Confidor (imidacloprid),Nuvan (dichlorvos), Thiodan (endosulfan) 

and Monocil (monocrotophos) without mixing with jaggery solution but he has mixed 

insecticide i.e., Confidor with soluble fertilizer (Hygiene). He is doing this 

practice since 2 years and according to his view, result is excellent. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (2) ME traps He is knowing the ME traps since he started 

growing the bitter gourd crop. He is using this traps during peak fruit fly activity 

i.e., March-April months. He doesn't know the exact quantity of ME and insecticide 


(DDVP). He is applying both ME and DDVP till cotton swab become completely wet and 

then placed inside the container and then hang under the pandal. 

LEAF HOPPERS He said that this is serious pests when crop is in initial stage. This 

pest is locally known as "Chusiya" (it means sap suckers). He explained that 

initially this pest suck up the cell sap and leaves become yellow, the symptom is he 

called as "Piliyu" (means yellowing). "Almost 50-60% plants are affected" he said. 

The Confidor and soluble fertilizer is the best to overcome this situation as per his 

experience. 

FRUIT BORER (Diaphania indica) As per his views, the infestation of this initiate at 

first shower in rainy season. He said it bore the fruit and make it unfit for 

marketing. According to him this pest cause damage up to 20-25%. He said spraying of 

monocrotophos and endosulfan is giving good results. 

CAULIFLOWER He is growing this crop during November to January i.e., after bitter 

gourd crop is over. In mid-January, he again plant bitter gourd. Thus, he is 

following cropping system, bitter gourd-cauliflower. He said this is good 

remunerative crop particularly within short period. 

CAULIFLOWER PESTS He said that "Molo" (local name of aphid) and "lili iyal"(local 

name of diamond back moth) are the main pests of cauliflower and attacking every 

year. He spray insecticides viz., dimethoate, monocrotophos and endosulfan for aphid 

and B.t. products Delfin, Biolep etc. for diamond back moth. 

FENUGREEK This is also a good short duration crop according to his view. When crop is 

of 30-35 days old, he uproot the plants and makes them in small bunches for sale in 

the market, thereby earning a good money. He said there is no pest problem in this 

crop. 

PADDY He said that he is following cropping system viz., paddy (July to 

October)-wheat (October to February)-bajra (March to June) in 2.0 ha land. Required 

quantity of grains he kept for his own consumption, while rest he is selling in the 

market. Fodder is utilized for the cattle. 

PADDY PESTS He said this year hopper were the serious problem and it was difficult to 

control in spite of spraying various insecticides viz., monocrotophos, endosulfan, 

dichlorvos, chlorpyriphos + cypermethrin. 

WHEAT AND BAJRA He said that both crops are good cereal crop and used for own 

consumption as well as for selling. There is no any pest problem in these crops. 

#A007 DATE 3/10/03 TEAM RCJ/DBS Village Hariyala, Dist. Kheda. He is a small/marginal 

farmer having 0.75 ha total land. Out of which 0.25 ha land is occupied by bitter 

gourd crop and above-mentioned crops occupy rest. He has 3 persons in the family and 

he has to feed all 3 persons. He said that from 0.25 ha bitter gourd crop, he is 

getting gross income Rs. 50,000/- with total expenditure of Rs. 17,500/-. He said 

that up to 10 months, he depends upon bitter gourd. For rest of the period, he 

depends on other crops. 

CROPS He said that he is growing bitter gourd, smooth gourd, cauliflower, bajra, 

wheat and fodder sorghum. 

BITTER GOURD His family is growing this crop since 50 years. He said that he has 

started to grow this crop by seeing neighbors who are earning more by growing this 

crop in comparison to other crops. This crop need less expenditure and giving good 

return, he said. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS He said that his crop is infested with fruit fly, hoppers and 


fruit borer. 

FRUIT FLY He said that he is facing the problem of fruit fly since he is growing the 

crop. He said infestation of this pest remained at peak during March-April and then 

slowly decline. He said that this pest cause damage up to20-25% throughout the 

season. He said that every year fruit fly infestation remain more or less similar. 

According to him, this is notorious pest because it cause direct damage to the 

fruits. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods for the control of fruit fly. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAY (1) Spraying of insecticides He has sprayed the crop with 

insecticides viz. Nuvan (dichlorvos), Confidor (imidacloprid), Rogor (dimethoate), 

Thimet (Phorate). He has also used fenthion (Laybacid) + jaggery and obtained a good 

results. He has followed this practices since 2-3 years as advised by Village Level 

Worker (VLW)/Gram Sevak. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (2) ME traps. He said that cotton swab is soaked with the 

solution of ME + insecticide and placed inside the empty tobacco containers. He 

doesn't know the exact quantity of ME and DDVP. 

HOPPERS He said that hopper attacks when crop is about one month age. As it suck up 

the cell sap, leaves turn yellowish in colour and plant become weak. According to 

him, spraying of Confidor (imidacloprid) works very well against this pest. 

FRUIT BORER He said that this pest attack particularly during monsoon period. 

According to his views, it can cause damage up to 25-30% during its peak. Spraying of 

insecticides is only the way to control this pests as per his views. He sprayed the 

crops with insecticides viz., monocrotophos, endosulfan and dimethoate. 

SMOOTH GOURD He planted the crop in 0.25 ha. He said that this is also a good 

remunerative crop. He said that fruit fly is the major pest attacking to this crop 

and cause damage up to 40%. He is using insecticides viz., dichlorvos, monocrotophos 

and also fenthion + jaggery to control the fruit fly. 

CAULIFLOWER He said that after up-rooting the bitter gourd (i.e. in October) the land 

is remaining fallow up to December-January but in this period, if he grow short 

duration crop like cauliflower then it give good return as per his views. Therefore 

he following bitter gourd-cauliflower cropping system. He said that this crop is 

infested by aphid and "Lili iyal" (i.e. diamond back moth). He is using insecticides 

to manage this pests. According to the advise given by shop keeper/insecticide 

retailer, he is using the insecticides. 

BAJRA He said that he is growing bajra mainly for his own consumption. He is growing 

this crop during summer season. He said there is no any pest problem in this crop. 

WHEAT He said that he is growing this crop for own consumption as well as for selling 

purpose. He said that there is no any pest problem in this crop. 

SORGHUM He said that he is growing this crop only for his cattle as a fodder crop. He 

said that when crop is attaining certain height, then he cuts the sorghum and feeds 

to cattle as a green fodder. He said that there is no any pest problem in this crop. 

#A008 DATE 3/10/03 TEAM RCJ/DBS Village Hariyala, Dist. Kheda. He is a big farmer. He 

has about 25 ha land. He is growing bitter gourd in about 10.0 ha land, while rest of 

the land is occupied by smooth gourd and paddy. He is hiring persons on contract 

basis for cultivation of all the crops. He has to feed 25 persons. He is satisfied 

with the income, from the Agriculture. 


CROPS He said that he is growing bitter gourd, smooth gourd and paddy. 

BITTER GOURD: He said that he is growing this crop since more than 50-60 years on 

share basis. He said that this is good remunerative crop in comparison to other 

crops. It gives income up to 10 months as per his views. During last year, he had 

planted the crop at the distance of 2.0 m between two rows and 1.0 m between two 

plants. He said that he is satisfied with this crop. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS He said that his crop is infested by fruit fly, leaf hoppers, 

fruit borer and "Dhaliya" (local name of Epilachna beetle). 

FRUIT FLY As per his views, this pest cause damage up to 25 to 35% during the season 

but it increases only during March-April. He said that he is observing this pests 

since 50-60 years. According to him, this pest is main economical constraint, which 

cause direct loss. He said that when there is a initiation of fruit setting and 

market price is at it's peak (February-March), there is more fruit fly damage. Asked 

upon reason for this, he replied that it is due to increase in heat. As heat 

increases, the fruit fly infestation increases as per his views. He said that due to 

infestation of this pest, the fruit turn yellow and finally fall down. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods of fruit fly control. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAY (1) Spraying insecticides He has sprayed his crop with Nuvan 

(dichlorvos), Rogor (dimethoate), Monocil (monocrotophos) and Confidor 

(imidacloprid). He has also applied Thimet (Phorate) in soil. He said that he is 

using insecticides, since he is growing the crop. He has satisfaction with the 

insecticide. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (2) ME traps He is using methyl eugenol (ME) traps 

particularly during March to May i.e., peak infestation period. He doesn't know the 

exact quantity of ME and DDVP. Simply after soaking the cotton swab in ME and DDVP 

mixture, it is placed inside the trap/plastic bottle/empty metal container and hanged 

in the pendal. He is also using insecticides even though he has hung the ME traps. 

LEAF HOPPERS He said that this pest attacks initially i.e., during February-March 

particularly when crop is of 1.0 to 1.5 months old. Since last 10 years, he is 

observing this pest. The plants become yellow and weaken due to sucking from the 

leaves as per his views. He has sprayed his crop with imidacloprid or dimethoate 

mixed with soluble fertilizer and is satisfied with this. 

FRUIT BORER He said that this is notorious pests observed only during monsoon period. 

He is observing this pest since 10 years. He said that it can cause damage up to 

35-40% particularly during July to September. The damage is so severe that spraying 

of insecticides is only the way out for this problem. He has sprayed the crop with 

monocrotophos, endosulfan, dichlorvos for the control of this pest. 

EPILACHNA BEETLE (DHALIYA) He said this 'Dhaliya' (local name of epilachna beetle) 

attacks at the end of the crop i.e., during October month. At this stage crop is 

nearer to finish, so he is not applying any insecticide to control this pest as per 

his views. According to him, you cannot find a single green leaf when there is severe 

attack. He said that if attacks start early, when fruiting is on then insecticidal 

application is a must. He is using insecticides as per the guidance from 

shopkeeper/VLW. 

SMOOTH GOURD He has grown the crop at a distance of 2.0 m between two rows and 1.0 m 

between two plants. He said that this is also a good remunerative crop next to bitter 

gourd. He said that fruit fly is only the pest attack severely. It can cause damage 

up to 50-60% during peak activity period. He has used insecticides to control this 

pest. 


PADDY He said that he is growing the paddy for his own consumption and also for 

selling. He is growing paddy in the area of about 5.0 ha. The fodder is utilized for 

his cattle. He said that paddy is infested by leaf hoppers, leaf folders and stem 

borers. He is using insecticides to control the pests in paddy. 

#A009 DATE 3/10/03 TEAM RCJ/DBS Village Vansar (Udhela), Dist. Kheda. He is a medium 

farmer. He has 1.5 ha land. He is growing bitter gourd in 0.25 ha land and rest of 

the land is occupied by above mentioned crops. He has to feed 15 persons. After 

bitter gourd crop is over, he has to depend on cattle farming. 

CROPS He is growing bitter gourd, paddy and tobacco. 

BITTER GOURD He said that he is growing bitter gourd since 15 years. He said that by 

seeing other farmers he adopted this crop as it is a good remunerative crop. He said 

that this is a cash crop giving round the year income and required minimum labour 

work. It also required a minimum quantity of pesticides. He said that this crop is 

good particularly to those farmers who have small land holding. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS As per his views, in the initial stage of the crop leaf hoppers 

(locally called as "Chusiya") attacks the crop, then fruit fly infestation starts and 

at the end of the crop fruit borer attacks the crop. 

FRUIT FLY He said that he is facing the problem of this pest since he is growing the 

crop. According to him, it can cause damage up to 40%. He said that fruit fly 

infestation starts from February and reaches to peak during April-May and then slowly 

decline. He further added that due to infestation by this pest, the fruit become 

yellow and thus it hamper the fruit quality and cause economical loss. He said that 

as heat increases, the fruit fly infestation increases. He said that we cannot see 

the maggots from outside as it remains inside the fruit and cause rotting of the 

fruits. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods of fruit fly control. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAY (1) Spraying insecticides He said that he has sprayed the 

crop with dichlorvos (Nuvan), dimethoate (Rogor), monocrotophos, fenthion (Laybacid) 

as and when need arise. He said that spraying works well particularly during severe 

pest problem. He is not mixing the jaggery with insecticides because he doesn't know. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (2) ME traps He said that he has hanged the ME traps made up 

of empty tobacco container having inside the cotton swab which is soaked in the ME + 

insecticide solution. He doesn't know the name of insecticide. He doesn't know which 

flies are attracted inside the trap and which flies are infesting his crop. On the 

basis of advise from the pesticide dealer/shop keeper, he is using the ME traps. 

LEAF HOPPERS He said that this pest attacks during January-February i.e., in the 

initial stage of the crop. He knows that due to sucking of sap from the leaves, plant 

looks yellowish in colour. He said that spraying of insecticide is the best way for 

the control of this pest. He has used dimethoate (Rogor), monocrotophos and 

imidacloprid. 

FRUIT BORER He said that this pests appears during monsoon period and directly bore 

the fruits and cause economical damage. He further added that it can cause damage up 

to 40%. It is difficult to control this pests as per his experience. He said that 

after spraying the insecticides, if there is rainfall, the insecticide wash-off and 

there is no control. 

PADDY He grow paddy crop for his own consumption and also for selling. He said that 

the fodder is utilized for his cattle. He follow paddy-tobacco cropping system. As 

per his views, hoppers, leaf folders, stem borers and worms infest this crop. He said 


that spraying insecticides is only the way out of the pest attack. He has used 

monocrotophos, dichlorvos, phorate, etofenprox, endosulfan for the control of hoppers 

and leaf folders during this year. He is not happy with the performance of the 

insecticides against hoppers and leaf folders. 

TOBACCO He said that this is a good cash crop and giving good income. He is growing 

"Calcutti" tobacco after harvesting paddy. He said that due to disease locally called 

as "Kohvaro" (damping off) thousands of seedlings die in the nursery. He mentioned 

that drenching of fungicide viz., Ridomil M Z is giving good results. After 2-3 

months of transplanting the crop, Spodoptera litura (locally called as "Lashkari 

Iyal") attacks the crop. He further added that it feeds on leaves and hence cause 

yield losses. He said that spraying insecticide is giving good results against this 

pest. He is using the insecticide as per guidance from the shop keeper/pesticide 

dealer. 

#A010 DATE 3/10/03 TEAM RCJ/DBS Village Vansar (Udhela), Dist. Kheda. He is a medium 

farmer having 2.0 ha land. He is growing bitter gourd in 0.5 ha land. He has to feed 

15 members. He said that he gets income from bitter gourd for about 9 months and then 

he has to depends on cattle and other crops. 

CROPS He is growing bitter gourd, paddy, bajra and sesamum. 

BITTER GOURD He said that he is growing bitter gourd since 15 years and it is good 

remunerative crop round the year. He also said that in small land holding, it gives 

good income and require a minimum expenditure. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS He said that bitter gourd is attacked by fruit fly, leaf hoppers 

and fruit borer. 

FRUIT FLY He said that this is notorious pest causing 30 to 25% damage to the fruits, 

hence it can cause economical damage. He said that it is difficult to control this 

pest as it is flying. According to him, infestation starts from March-April as fruits 

are available during this period. As per his views, adult fly cause damage by seating 

on the fruit. He explained that during earlier years there was lower damage compared 

to damage now he is observing. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He knows two methods for the control of fruit fly. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: SPRAYS (1) Spraying of insecticides He said that he has sprayed 

dimethoate (Rogor), monocrotophos, dichlorvos (Nuvan), imidacloprid (Tatamida) to 

control this pest. He said that this practice is good particularly during peak 

activity period and it is giving good results also. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL: TRAPS (2) ME traps He has hanged traps in the pendal by putting 

the cotton swab soaked in the ME + Nuvan (dichlorvos) mixture. He doesn't know the 

exact quantity of ME + Nuvan. He said that cotton swab should be completely wet. He 

doesn't know which flies are attracted and which flies cause damage to his crop. 

LEAF HOPPERS He said that this pest attack during initial stage of the crop and cause 

yellowing of the plant. He has sprayed insecticide viz., dimethoate (Rogor) and 

imidacloprid (Tatamida) to control this pest. 

FRUIT BORER He said that this is a serious pest of bitter gourd and the infestation 

starts from July i.e., after onset of monsoon and increases gradually and remains up 

to October month. He sprayed insecticides viz., monocrotophos, endosulfan, dimethoate 

suggested by shop keeper/pesticide dealer but he is not satisfied with the 

performance of insecticides. 

PADDY He has grown this crop in the area of 0.25 ha for his consumption and for 


fodder purpose. He explained that plant hopper, leaf folders and stem borer mainly 

attacks the paddy. Spraying insecticides viz., dichlorvos, monocrotophos, phorate 

etc. is only way out of this problem, he said. 

BAJRA He is growing this crop in summer as well as kharif for his own consumption. He 

said that there is no any pest problem in this crop. 

SESAMUM He is growing this oilseed crop for getting good market price, however he is 

growing this crop in a small area (0.25 ha). He said that he doesn't face any pest 

problem in sesamum. 

#A010 DATE 15/4/4 TEAM JMS/RCJ. Total five acres. About 60 years old. 

PRICES & WAGES He grows all bitter gourd. Prices here have slipped a little. Was 

300rs for 20kg - a good price - now 220, even 180. Labour is short. Farmers are 

offering 100/day but can't get takers. 

GOURD He started growing about 20 years ago - before that cereals - pearl millet, 

wheat, sesamum. He shifted because to a cash crop. 20 years ago the price was 

Rs25/20kg, now it is 80-300, mean is 150, because of new varieties - vigro and sangro 

(vigro is about 6" long, sangro bigger). 

COST-BENEFIT He spends Rs45ooo/acre to set it up. After the pandal is up 15ooo in 

subsequent years. 5ooo/bigha - each bigha is 1/3 acre. Yield is 300 quintals per acre 

(each quintal 100kgs) @ Rs750/quintal = 75oooRs/acre {check this}. In fact about 

60-70oooRs. So how long does the pandal last? The string needs replacing every year; 

bamboo sticks 4 years; corner poles, the thick ones, only 2 years because of timber 

and the termites get at them. 

GOURDS Why bitter gourd rather than other gourds? Overall small gourd is better than 

bitter, but in the last few years has had problems; ecological change, in the 

atmosphere; small gourd has declined. Labour too - SG is more labour-intensive. BG 

has a smaller number of fruits per KG than SG, so the labour needs to harvest on KG 

are less. One worker in one day can harvest 300KG of BG but only 10KG of SG {?}. SG 

is also infested more than BG with fruit fly. 

VEGETABLES Why gourd rather than other vegetables? In Oct & Nov after Divali they 

grow ghobi. So the whole pandal is taken down every year. Ghobi earns 30ooo net. So 

cauliflower, BG and wheat are what they grow. Some use of fenugreek, but doesn't 

fetch much - 15oooRs/acre. Why BG and ghobi? They are most remunerative. Why not grow 

a spread of vegetables of different types? Because the prices of BG and SG are better 

than other cucurbits. And they have medicinal qualities too. And if you have a number 

of different cucurbits it causes problems. Why? BG and SG have the best price - 

bottle gourd is less. What about tomato, sag, onion? Tomato has problems with ecology 

- short-term and often fails because of ecology. Sometimes the yield is so excessive 

nobody will buy it and it's fed to cows. Tomato gets Rs20 per carton of 20KG - a bad 

price. What ecology problem? A virus. What short-term problem? No guarantee it will 

yield - SG and BG produce over a longer period, so if there is a bad spell they can 

still yield later. Tomato has a short cycle and so is vulnerable to periodic bad 

patches more than gourds. 

{RCJ is of the view there has been an increase in the knowledge of the role of BG in 

diabetes which has increased demand among the old; also at weddings BG is almost 

always served to counteract the huge quantities of sugar consumed.} 

{So gourds are favoured because of the long fruiting season - this not only produces 

a steady income but provides some risk-spreading against fluctuations in prices. 

Gourds favoured because of long season but this entails access to a steady and 

reliabel water supply: RCJ observes that Gourds are distinguished from other 


vegetables not by having greater water needs, but that water is needed for a longer 

time.} 

CROPPING CYCLE Usually plant BG in January - yields in April till January; but now a 

problem has come it goes only up to September {they ask us why this is}. Because most 

people have not enough land. 1st crop 11 or 12 months, then over the years it goes 

down. Yield and crop duration go down. Because of continuous cropping. If you could 

leave it fallow it would recover; but population pressure on the land is increasing 

so it can't rest. 

MARKET ACCESS ROLE In the switch from subsistence crops to gourds 20 years ago, how 

important was the main road in making it possible? The big main road wasn't here then 

- but the other one was. Would you have been less likely to grow BG if the road were 

not close? Yes. If we were not near the road growing BG would be a problem. 

PERISHABILITY How long after harvest will a crop of BG remain saleable? It must go to 

market overnight, or it goes yellow and ripe can't be sold. 24 hours is all you get. 

SMALL/BITTER GOURD HARVEST QUALITIES Small gourd produces a milky sticky lactation, 

BG does not - it causes problems in harvesting. Sticks to the skin and can cause a 

rash. You have to wash your hands. 

GOURDS AND VEGETABLES So how many years have you been growing the cauliflower? At 

first BG was grown year-round, and one month insolation/fallow. In the last five 

years BG production has dropped to 7 months, yellow because of jassid, then the 

cauliflower comes in. In other years they grew other things. Often with irrigation 

people shift from cereals to BG. In other areas people move from cereals to tomato. 

Why in some cases BG, in others tomato? Always market access is important. 

SOCIAL NON-COOPERATION An agitated discussion now arises over a local farmer who 

refuses to allow admission to the sprayteam doing the wide-area BAT in the 

surrounding sqkm (which is going on as we speak). He says he has no problems with 

fruit flies. He is at once labelled a 'huchhi' - a Gujarati work meaning a stubborn, 

antisocial person in the village - literally 'troublesome' - and leading to the 

saying 'Ek huchhi akhi payuga ne nade' - 'if there is one huchhi in the village he 

will be an obstacle to everybody.' This is an aspect of their nature - they are 

always negative and making problems. This huchhi says he has already sprayed - 

'Marshall' imidaclorphid against sucking pests. He has no fruit fly problem so we are 

unnecessary. He has 10 acres, or about 4-5Ha. He has known us for ages and been 

friendly and helpful - on one occasion we even mixed the spray liquid on his 

forecourt. 

THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CLASS The huchhi is derogated as thinking he's a rajput. There 

were of old four communities from the top (1) Brahmin (priests) (2) Shatriya 

(warriors) (3) Vaishya (merchants and farmers) and (4) Shudra ('untouchables'). The 

huchhi is a farming shatriya, thinking himself superior to the vaishyas. (A rajput is 

a prince, a superior shatriya). 'Patel' is a vaishya farmer. There are many 

subcategories (e.g. of Patel). The differences between the various categories are 

less clear than they used to be. Most people in this village are in fact Shatriya. 

The Huchhi is also a shatriya and therefore no better than most. So caste is not part 

of his obnoxiousness - more significant is that his brother is an MLA, and so 

powerful. A person with political connections is assumed as a matter of course to be 

richer. So has airs and graces because politically connected & well off - not because 

of elevated caste. (The driver, who is a Muslim, is asked about Muslim classes - oh 

yes: top is Sayyad, then Sheikh, then Mughal - there is no shudra equivalent). The 

Muslims get on well with the Shatriya, and vice-versa; they don't like the Patels 

because the Patels don't like them. In Shatriya and Muslim areas, if one becomes 

successful, the others try to pull him down; Patels don't do this. There is a story 

of a king imprisoning a group of Patels in a well, and a group of Shatriya in 


another; a guard is placed over the Patel well, but not the Shatriya one; asked why, 

the king replies that a Patel may climb out, but if one Shatriya tries to climb out 

the others will pull him back in. 

#A011 DATE 15/4/4 TEAM JMS/RCJ. Total seven acres. About 60 years old. Of his 7acres 

4 are actually here. 

BITTER GOURD PRICE ADVANTAGES He grows all bitter gourd. Why BG > other vegetables? 

More production, more economic return. Wheat is less good than BG. You get 1 ton of 

wheat per bigha. This is 24 quintals per acre. 16-17oooRs/acre. BG brings in 1 lakh 

Rs per acre. BG normally raises Rs400/20kg but now but price has fallen because of BG 

being brought in from S Gujarat. Because of improvements in roads & transport. Have 

you tried any other vegetables - tomato, cauliflower? No. Why not? He has no 

follow-on crop. He lets the land fallow from Oct to Jan. Started 20 years back with 

small gourd. After 5 years switched to bitter gourd, and grew both. Since 2003 

stopped the small gourd and now grows bitter gourd only. Small gourd is more 

labour-intensive - particularly in harvest. How does it compare in price? Bitter 

gourd fetches more per kg - small gourd price is now 100/kg, bitter gourd 140. He 

grew potatoes once - but had to spend 10K and got 10K. 

GOURD PESTS What is the worst pest? Leafhopper. Sucking pests. How about fruit fly? A 

problem in bg arising out of being a problem in smooth and little gourd. If BG is 

left to itself, sucking pests are the major problem and ff not too bad {BG is 

apparently relatively resistant to FF}. Infested bitter gourd, and even healthy ones, 

if unsold can be dried, powdered and sold - Rs25/kg. If the market price goes down, 

and he gets Rs50/20kg, you slice and dry it. 20kg of gourd will produce 3kg of dried 

chips. At 22-25Rs/kg, this price is better than for fresh. In bitter gourd, 

leafhopper is a problem even when fruit fly is a problem. The pandals of BG which are 

near to those of Small G and Smooth G get ff problems worse than the others. 

GOURD PRICE DETERMINANTS Smooth gourd price is better than bitter gourd, and easier 

to harvest. It is added to meat in non-veg cuisine, e.g. by muslims, hotels. Non-veg 

biriani. Makes a good gravy. This is why the price is good. 

FRUIT FLY Fruit fly is not a big problem here. 

PEST SEQUENCE 1st pest to arrive - caterpillar. 2 weeks. Another 1-2 months, say 6-7 

weeks, the jassid comes - when the vine reaches the pandal. Spray once and it goes 

away, if the temperature drops is also goes. If you are good to others, God will 

reward you. The soil is your mother. Worship the goddess and pest problems diminish. 

Believe in karma - do good and not harm. 

HUCHHI PEST CONTROL A neighbour of the huchhi says he sprayed twice this year. He has 

had people from a pesticide company round. He doesn't know against which pest this 

was. 

#A012 DATE 15/4/4 TEAM JMS/RCJ. Haryala village. He helps his father, only since the 

last 3 years. 

GOURD AND VEGETABLE PROS AND CONS He has 6-7 acres. 16-17 acres he had on a share 

basis and he took tomatoes. Rented basis. He paid 40oooRs rent for 17 acres. 800 

quintals of tomato. Sold in the market. 600 quintals was spoilt because of Heliothis. 

Price raised was 30rs/20kg. So he earned 124ooo. But he spent 2 lakh so suffered a 

loss. But he will still grow tomatoes - if you make a loss in 1 year, in 2nd year may 

gain. The two previous years he made money on tomato, but on less than 17 acres. Here 

he has 1.5 acre under BG, the rest with smooth g. Smooth g is better than BG and 

tomato because price is maintained, particularly in summer before the rainy season, 

in the rainy season the price goes down. In this season the price is 300rs/kg. In 

monsoon this goes down to 60rs, because production rises. In that case, what is the 


advantage of bitter gourd? He started this year, but this year the price has gone 

down. Last three years the price was good. In Saurastra people now grow BG with the 

new Narmada water, pushed the price down. He cultivated small gourd 10 years back, 

now the soil is depleted and no longer suitable. Might you grow tomato? If the price 

is right he'll grow tomato. 

HISTORY OF GOURD INTRODUCTION His father arrives. 20 years ago it was all cereals. 

Then tomato, cabbage, cauliflower, then 6-7 years ago switched to gourds. Started 7 

years ago with small gourd, for 2-3 years. Then shifted to smooth gourd; BG last and 

this year. Now has smooth gourd and bitter gourd. Why the shift away from small 

gourd? Labour problems at harvest. Because small gourds are small, the labour needed 

to harvest a unit weight is a lot more, pushing costs up. Why the move from smooth 

gourd to bitter gourd? Others were, so why not try it. Last year was very good for 

smooth gourd. Last year ha had a big plot of smooth gourd, and little plot of bitter 

gourd just to see. Still this year he's not sure about bitter gourd. There is a virus 

in the smooth gourd. Bitter gourd gets fruit flies more than smooth gourd, which gets 

them more than small gourd. So his favourite is smooth gourd, even though everybody 

else's is bitter. Why was the shift from cabbage/cauliflower/tomato to gourds? He 

still grows them, after the gourd. Cauliflower after smooth gourd. In February he 

sows smooth gourd, which ends in September; then comes 1.5 months of fallow to 

fertilise; then, after Divali, cauliflower and cabbage in together, which are over by 

February. Why the shift from cabbage/cauliflower/tomato to gourd? Other people were 

trying it so he tried and it was good. Prices were better. Cabbage and cauliflower 

were also grown with the wheat. Wheat was grown from November to February, and over 

by March 1st week. Ten years ago the wheat was grown until the end of March, brinjal 

and/or bottle gourd up until the August, then wheat again, November to March. So why 

no brinjal any more? No particular reason. "Now we have come to the pandal." 

LABOUR RETURNS TO GOURD HARVEST His gourds are a sharecrop - he owns the land, 

provides the fertiliser, water and pandal and gets 3 / 4 of the yield. The people who 

provide the labour get 1 / 4. A landless family do the work - weed, irrigate, spray 

and harvest. Does this labour sharing work for all crops? No - only smooth gourd. 

Why? Labourer insisted. "Less energy to smooth gourd gets more." The returns to 

labour in smooth gourd are better than in other crops, so advantageous to the 

labourer. The farmer has to agree with this, because it's what the labourer wants and 

we agree to be humanitarian. {i.e., returns to labour are so good, the labourer 

insists on a share instead of wages because they make more that way}. 

PRICE COMPETITION He lost 80ooo on tomato this year - largely because of price. 

Tomato used to come to Ahmedabad from Jaipur and Bagerhat {?}. Now production has 

started here in Kheda, which has brought the price down. So seasonal fluctuation in 

prices. So when is the Kheda tomato season? Jan-Feb-March, just into April. Now is 

the lowest price - 40Rs/kg to the consumer, the farmer gets 1.5-2Rs. Why not grow 

tomatoes out of season, with irrigation? Nobody would do that. You could grow tomato 

in the monsoon, but you would need to trail them. 

GOURD HISTORY 15 years back small gourd was the commonest cucurbit. 

#A013 DATE 15/4/4 TEAM JMS/RCJ. Village Haryala. He has 12 acres altogether. 

CROPS Of his 12 acres 1 of bitter gourd. 1.75 of smooth gourd. 0.5 of cluster bean. 5 

of wheat. 1.5 of bhajra. 1 of small gourd. 

CROP PRICES The relative advantages and disadvantages of crops are mostly in prices. 

Eg bitter gourd was 2-300Rs, now produce is there and the price is not there. Small 

gourd price is there but production is not there. Smooth gourd has the best price but 

problems of virus. Wheat and bhajra are for home consumption. "You can't eat only 

vegetables." The cluster bean is grown for sale. A remunerative crop but prone to 

disease. Powdery mildew is serious - it is possible to lose the crop. 20-25oooRs/acre 


if no disease. About 3-4 months. 

GOURDS AND FRUIT FLIES Are they the same or different with regard to the fruit fly? 

Smooth gourd and small gourd suffer from the fly more than bitter gourd. 

VEGETABLES AND PESTS They grew mostly cereals until 15 years ago. Any other 

vegetables, or only these? He tried tomato - 3-4 years. Not succeeded. Heliothis. 

Brinjal - the problem was borer. 

CAULIFLOWER He will grow cauliflower soon - he's not sure, maybe after the BG or 

possibly in a separate field. Also a good crop, but with a less-than-ideal price 

situation. 

GOURDS & FRUIT FLIES Which crop suffers worst from pests? Worst in BG is fruit fly. 

Worst in small gourd is fruit fly. Worst in smooth g is leaf curl, fruit fly second. 

Small gourd is grown from cutting, the others from seed. 

VILLAGE COOPERATION How do you get villagers to cooperate? We'ld like to have form a 

cooperative society. There is now no cooperative society. Why? Not possible like in 

milk. Have problems with cooperation. Would do applications in a coordinated way, 

coordinate but not cooperatively. A problem is party politics. The village hucchi is 

his cousin, but he is BJP, the huchhi Congress. So they hate each other. He is also 

shatriya. Has the village a "head man"? Yes - the tsirpanch - elected by the village 

council. He is BJP but not necessarily political. The village council is the ranchat. 

Tsirpanch not necessarily political - sometimes independent. Elected by village 

council, which is elected by villagers. If the tsirpanch gave some directive and can 

persuade people, most farmers would do it, but not all. Some are hucchis, some too 

poor to afford. A lot will depend on the quality of the tsirpanch. 

#A014 DATE 15/5/5 TEAM JMS/RCJ/DBS. {Evaluation visit to the wide-area BAT village. 

Most of the day is taken in presentations, speeches and a rather good lunch, so less 

discussion with farmers takes place than JS would have liked. Overall the view is 

that the wide-area application was most successful, and the infestation was zero by 

the end of the season. The huchhi has kept his obstinate stand, and would still be 

unwilling to participate in cooperative control were it to be tried again. There is 

some laughter at his attitude. There is no indication that village-level wide-area 

cooperative control may be taken up and sustainable. JS suspects that the fact that 

the area is almost all under gourds, which is due to a happy confluence of factors - 

technology, irrigation and the road - creates a homogeneity of cultivation practice 

which is purely accidental and is not reflected in any real social cohesion. Wide-are 

management would need to be organised by the sirpanch, but he gives the impression of 

having enough on his plate to maintain his authority, in the light of tensions within 

the village, to attempt to spend political capital on such a project. The sirpanch 

sees social pest management in terms of risk, not of return - his losses from failure 

would outweigh his perceived returns to success.} 

@~G - GANDHEVI 

#G001 DATE:17/09/03 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ Farmer with his brother. He has a total 6 ha. land 

they are 8 family members. That much farm produce is not sufficient to fulfil all 

requirements. His two brothers are working in UK & USA. 

CROPS They are growing chiku, sugarcane, mango & bitter gourd. 

CHIKU (also sapota or milk tree) He has a 2.5ha orchard of chiku growing since 1968. 

He planted Kalipatti variety graft at a distance of 10-x 10-m with general cultural 

practices. They thought chiku gave fruits throughout the year and continuous income. 

Now chiku gives good results, steady income throughout the year, and meets the family 

expenses. If more fruit are produced we get low price and vice versa. There is no 


isk of complete failure of crop. Amalsad Co-operative Society is good for marketing 

also. 

CHIKU PESTS Up to last 3 - 4 years, there was not that much problem of insect pests 

as well as disease in chiku. But nowadays bud borer, seed borer and fruit flies 

causes heavy damage. 

BUD BORER A very destructive insect, feeds on flower buds and leaves also. Damaged 

buds dry and fall down. No fruit setting. It may be major problem at time of 

flowering that is in October. They are spraying the insecticide recommended by Agril. 

Scientist Dr. P.R. Patel. He mentioned only monocrotofos and was unable to list out 

all. He got very good results with these insecticides. 

FRUIT FLY A/C to his view, this pest is prevalent in this area from chiku 

cultivation. It is causing heavy damage in April to May. He thought it might be due 

to raising temperature. 25 to 35 percent losses caused due to pest, damaging fruits 

which are ready to harvest. He said that infestation is increasing every year. He is 

not doing any management practices in chiku. He thinks that if they are using fruit 

fly traps on their farm flies come from adjacent untreated farms. It is necessary to 

use traps on all farms. {It seems chiku is blamed for infesting mango, rather than 

vice-versa, because the chiku is more constantly-bearing and so keeps the fly 

population available throughout the year.} 

MANGO He is growing mango since last 10 to 12 years (c. 1992?). Mango is labourless, 

high yielding and good market crop. So they start to grow it. He said that it 

performs very well. As it is good cash crop, but fruit fly is a major problem now 

days. 

PESTS He listed fruit fly, jassids, shoot borer. 

FRUIT FLY He said the fruit fly problem started in our area with chiku cultivation. 

Before that we got healthy fruits. It is major problem in March to April, coinciding 

with fruit maturity. He adds that they don't know anything regarding development of 

fruit fly. He said that 50 to 60% fruit affected. Fruit fly shifted from chiku to 

mango. 

MANAGEMENT: FRUIT FLY TRAP They are using since last 5 to 7 years. Co-operative 

society gives the attracting solution free of cost and we are applying 10 to 20 drops 

of solution per trap, recharge them 20 - 25 days. Traps are very good method. No 

problems. But it is necessary to use by all farmers. 

TULSI He said that tulsi plants also attract fruit fly. Previously they were growing 

tulsi but nowadays they get ready-made attractant solution. But also he thinks to 

grow tulsi this year. It is good method. {The mixture of both tulsi and ready-made 

attractant is explained in that attractant is distributed by society and doesn't 

arrive in time - usually early May - a bit too late; so tulsi home-grown is used to 

hold the population off and down until the deliveries arrive}. 

JASSIDS It sucks the cell sap from flower & there is complete deflowering. But it is 

controlled totally with insecticidal spray like endosulfan, neucron, monocrotofos. 

BITTER GOURD They are growing b. gourd from next year mixed in chiku orchard for home 

purpose. He said that they will spray crop with same as chiku but no special mgt. 

practice is done. Because it is on small scale - home purpose only. He mentioned, he 

doesn't know fruit fly damaging to b. gourd but there is unknown damage. 

#G002 DATE:18/09/03 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ Village Khergam. 

CHIKU He is growing Chiku, Mango, Bitter gourd, Small gourd. He is growing chiku 


since last 5 years. Area-3 ha. Var. 'Kalipatti'. Planting distance:-25 x 25m.They 

made pits of 2 x 2 feet, added organic manure in pit. Weeding should be done two 

times in a year. He said that the no-risk of crop failure is the great advantage of 

chiku, & continuous bearing. Chiku performing solid status in area. Amalsad co-op. 

society sends fruits to Delhi market & other part of India, so there is no problem of 

market & value also. In summer, the fruits are ripe earlier due to high temp. & fall 

down. 

PESTS seed borer, fruit fly, bud borer etc. 

SEED BORER Nowadays, seed borer is a threat to chiku growers in this area. A larva 

feeds on seed. They don't know anything regarding how it develops & enters in seed. 

When the harvested fruits were washed, they saw holes on fruits. Ants entered in such 

fruits & fruits rotting. Chiku plantation is decreasing in area, some farmers' cut 

off orchard, it may be due to the seed borer. Max. infestation found after rainfall. 

He said that this pest is dangerous in future as it loss market value to the half of 

it's original value. Sometimes holed fruits rejected by co-op. society. Larva is 

internal feeder; it is not response to any insecticides spray. He thinks that early 

spraying in May-June which kills the eggs, but same time they are engaged in Mango 

harvesting. He said that, pest loss ranging from 25 to 50% throughout the year. He 

mentioned that he uses sprays of different insecticides but not able to manage them. 

FRUIT FLY DAMAGE It is also one of the dangerous pests since chiku growing in our 

area. In the months of Mar.-July (summer) heavy damage caused to chiku fruits, & low 

during winter. Fallen fruits may be the reason for population build-up of fruit fly. 

It is a heavy problem, fruits mature early & fall down. While in market, damage can't 

be seen by naked eyes, so there is no problem. 

FF MANAGEMENT: FRUIT FLY TRAP He is using traps since last 5-6 yrs which is 

distributed by co-op. society free of cost to farmers. He recharges trap every 20-25 

days with attracting solution given by co-op. Easy to install. The traps are very 

good in trapping flies. One man should install 25- 30 traps within 1 hr. FF 

MANAGEMENT: TULSI PLANT He also grows Tulsi plant in & around orchard since last 6 

years, for attracting fruit flies. He said that population high in summer then he 

sprays tulsi with insecticides which are available in farm (monocrotofos, neucron, 

rocket, roger, quinalphos). He has thousands of Tulsi plants in orchard. It is also 

good practice & without any problem. 

FF MANAGEMENT: COLLECTION OF FRUITS He collects the fallen fruits & buries them deep 

in the field as he knows fruit flies develop in fallen fruits. He added sanitation is 

important. 

MANGO He planted mango in between chiku, var. 'KESAR', nearly 400 trees from last 

20-25 years. Mango is less labourious than chiku (complete within Oct.-June). Time & 

labour saving. Distance bet. trees - 25 x 25m. He added 10kg poultry manure/ tree 

every year. He thinks it is good but riskier than chiku. There is effect of climatic 

condition on bearing some times - alternate-bearing problem. Malformation is a 

problem but copper oxychloride works well for it. 

JASSIDS He said that they suck sap from tender leaves & flowers. When humidity is 

high, it becomes a problem, can be managed by alternative sprayings of monocrotophos, 

Rocket, neemazal (antifeedant, does not kill the insects), Kareena, neucron etc. 

Granular insecticides mixed with 'GERU' - a kind of red clay - & painted on trunk. 

FRUIT FLY Nowadays fruit flies are a major problem day by day. Mango mixed with chiku 

shows high damage. He thinks individual crop should be grow instead of mixed with 

chiku. Fruit flies are higher in May-July because mango food preferred more by them 

due to sweetness. All farmers are not adopting trapping system, they are lazy, it 

became a major problem. 20-30% loss in mango by fruit flies. 


FF MANAGEMENT He said that he using same practices as per chiku. He added that co-op. 

society costs RS.2/ trap & attracting solution free of cost. 

BITTER GOURD He is growing B.gourd since last two years. He added that he has free 

land so he thinks to grow B.gourd. As it has good market price & yield also. Green 

caterpillar (25-30%) & fruit flies (3-5%) are causing damage to fruit. He doesn't 

have any idea regarding which species damage B.gourd. He is not adopting any mgt. 

practices. 

#G003 DATE:18/09/03 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ Village: Desad. Farmer with his brother. 

CROPS They are growing mango, chiku, teakwood, babool, seven. 

MANGO He is growing varieties of mango viz., 'Keser', 'Alpanso', 'Rajapuri', 

'Totapuri' on 16 acres since 1970. They planted trees on 30 feet distance and used 

organic manure, DAP, Castor cake. Now they are adding 30kg poultry manure per tree. 

Canal Lift irrigation system is used, gives frequent irrigation from November to 

April at monthly interval with ring basin method. Mango is low cost farming, low 

fertilizer irrigation insecticide and economically sound, value-added crop. It 

performs very well in our area. Labourless market prices good. Only the alternate 

bearing is the problem. 

PEST: SHOOT BORER Larva tunnels new tender shoots & feed inside. Spraying of 

monocrotophos will check it. 

PEST: HOPPERS As they suck cell sap from tender leaves & flowers, are dangerous 

during March-April. Spraying of quinalphos, imidachloropid, Ektara (thiamethoxam) 

controls hoppers. 

PEST: ANTHRACNOSE It occurs during vast flowering. He uses copper oxychloride, 

bordaux mixture for spray. 

FRUIT FLY He said that it causes up to 10% loss. They are using traps distributed by 

Aajrai co-op. society. Its population is higher during summer. Traps are working very 

well, they are using for 7 years. But he thinks sometimes solution is adulterated 

which catch low fly. Co-operative society distributes solution very late during April 

- May. He thinks population starts build up from January - February. So attracting 

solution must be dispatched during January - February. 

CHIKU They have 100 trees of chiku started in 1923 and 200 trees from 1970. Variety 

'Kalipatti'. Crop is performing very well but due to climatic situation there is 

problem of late and less production in old orchard. He said that chiku gives steady 

income. 

BUD BORER It is feeding on buds of chiku, but managed by spraying of monocrotophos & 

endosulfan. 

"MIGNELF" is a chemical he uses to enhance flowering 

FRUIT FLY He doesn't think it is so serious. He is using fruit fly trap given by 

Co-operative Society. He said that solution should be given at a proper time and 

without adulteration. 

#G004 DATE:18/09/03 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ/MBP. Farmer and two neighbours. Their land will not 

fulfil their family expenses of 8 family members. Farmer him self is retired bank 

employee. His brothers are working one as a doctor and another work in USA. 

CROPS He said that he is growing only chiku and mango crop. 


CHIKU They are growing chiku from their forefathers before 50 years variety 

'Kalippatti'. He applying organic fertilizer and NPK @ 4 kg per tree. He irrigate the 

crop with an interval of 12 - 15 days in winter and weekly in summer. Planting 

distance between trees 10 x 10 m. Chiku performing good status due to coastal 

climatic conditions. He think chiku is a cash crop, net return, money throughout the 

year as continuous bearing. If production of chiku is low then he gets high prices 

and vice versa. So it always gets a good market price. 

PESTS Seed borer, Fruit fly are the important insect pests of chiku 

SEED BORER He said that this is the dangerous pest they saw since last 2 years in our 

area. Mainly it starts damaging to fruits in September. Pest causes hardly 1% loss. 

But they can't control it by spraying any insecticide. They are spraying endosulfan 

but seed borer does not respond. Its damage is decreased after winter automatically. 

FRUIT FLY He thinks fruit fly is the medium problem in chiku. He said that fruit fly 

population is highest during March - July and it is low during winter. This change 

may be due to environmental factors. Fruit fly loss up to 3 - 5 percent in chiku. 

They cause damage to ready to harvest fruits. 

TRAPS He is using fruit fly traps for 4 to 5 years. It is a plastic box with two 

circular holes, which contains small cotton piece soaked with attracting solution. 

They haven't any idea regarding solution. Co-operative Society distributes such traps 

and solution free of cost. Our state Government gives subsidies to implement this 

programme some farmers taking solution from Co-operative Society and keep it as such 

in the houses. They are lazy and not serious. Some farmers installing traps and 

others not, which results in fruit flies shifting from uncontrolled farm to 

controlled farm. This trap proves effective. 

MANGO They are growing mango since 1986 on 6 ha. He has growing different seven 

varieties of mangos viz., 'Kasar' - 400 trees, 'Dhaseri' - 140 trees, 'Langda' - 66 

trees, 'Alphanso' - 30 trees, 'Rajapuri' - 30 trees, 'Bhadami' - 45 trees and 

'Totapuri' - 23 trees. In 1986 they cut off old cultivation because low production 

and sloping land which created problems for irrigation. For expansion purpose. They 

keep ten-meter distance between two trees. Plantation requires seven years to get 

harvestable fruits. He got very good fruit production. But also mango has some 

problem like seeding of flowers, climatic effect on setting, theft problem also. 

Mango is not safe like chiku. Mango has short season crop, low labour cost, few 

irrigation marketing once. Better market price than chiku. Sometimes 100 % crop 

failed due to alternate bearing problem in varieties - Dhaseri and Langda. 

POWDERY MILDEW Disease is also serious on flowers as well as small fruits. He thinks 

it may due to high relative humidity but controlled by fungicide application. 

PESTS: HOPPERS He noted that fog conditions and more difference in day and night 

temperature during flowering is mainly responsible for hoppers attack. They suck the 

sap from flower & tender leaves. Flowers fall down. Black sooty mold develops on 

fruits due to hoppers. He shows black, sugary development on leaves, flowers and 

fruits also. Fruit lose market value. He noted that 25 to 100 % crops damaged if not 

controlled. Mainly active during the month of December to February. The hoppers 

remain throughout the year on the trunk. He pastes the trunk with bordeaux mixture. 

He sprayed crop with monocrotophos before flowering. He noted that spraying on 

flowers affects fruit setting problem. Confidor is special for its management. 

Sometimes he is using endosulfan also. 

FRUIT FLY Fruit flies are causing several damages to mango fruit. Their population is 

highest during April - May. He noted that after rainfall mango fruit are 100 percent 

damaged, so they are harvested earlier. Fruit fly develops in inside the fruit. He 

said average loss ranging from 10 to 15 %. This pest is very bad because it damages 


eady-to-harvest fruits. Farmers lose their goodwill in market due to fruit fly 

damage. He mentioned one example: previously Gadat co-op. society is well-known in 

mango marketing but nowadays they have lost goodwill in the market due to FF damage. 

Nowadays no known person purchases fruit from Gadat co-op. society. Fallen fruits are 

responsible to develop fruit flies. In mixed crop, mango damaged up to 40 % and chiku 

up to 10 to 15 %. 'Alpanso' and 'Kesar' varieties of mango are highly susceptible to 

fruit flies while variety 'Totapuri' is less susceptible. He thinks it may be due to 

sweetness as well as peel size. 

MANAGEMENT: FRUIT FLY TRAP Co-op. society distributes traps along with insecticide 

DDVP & attracting solution. He is installing 20 traps per ha., recharged at an 

interval of 10-15 days. This technique is very effective. Sometimes they haven't time 

to change the solution. Co-op. society distributes solution very late in the month of 

April, but they think, as population high from January - February, there is necessary 

to install trap in January. He noted those 10 traps per ha. is false recommendation 

and trap number should be doubled. 

TULSI Previously he grew tulsi plant to attract fruit flies and sprayed with 

insecticide DDVP frequently. 

COLLECTION OF FRUITS They collect damaged / fallen fruits. This method is good to 

check further development of fruit flies. But a laborious job. Collected fruit are 

buried in deep pit. 

#G005 DATE: 22/09/03 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ Village: Nanderkha 

CROPS. Small farmer growing BG, sapota, mango, ladies finger, paddy with 9 family 

members. He growing BG from last 3 years because it is high demanded veg. in local 

market. He has 30 trees of sapota (steady income) & mango each (high market value 

within short period). BG&PESTS Fruit flies cause heavy damage to BG fruits (early 

mature, yellowing, falldown, unmarketable) up to 50% damage. He sprays crop with 

mixt. of monocrotophos & DDVP suggested by his son, working as a Agri. assistant. 

Spray gave a good result. Previously he was using ME traps, but there was no any 

change in damage, satisfied by observing flies in traps. Unable to answer 'WHY?' 

SAPOTA&PESTS Leaf miner & Bud Borer are the major problems, damaging leaves & buds( 

10-15%loss). He thought that fruit flies in sapota feeds only fallen fruits so he 

don't take any management practice. 

MANGO&PESTS Fruit flies & Jassids are the main problems. By spraying monocrotophos & 

DDVP, he controls Jassids completely but fruit flies are not managed. He said that 

fruit flies feed inside fruits so chemicals are not working well. 

#G006 DATE: 01/10/03 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ Village: Chari, Chikhali. He has 8 family members 

with 2.5 ha. land. 

CROPS He growing mainly mango, SG, Ladies finger, sugarcane, paddy 

MANGO He has a 70 years old orchard of 1 ha.,planted at 10x10m distance. Varieties: 

Alphanso, Kesar, Langdo, and Rajapuri. Crop is advantageous due to once harvested in 

a year, less laborious, low fertilizer, less irrigation (3 irrigations), chemical 

fertilizer is not necessary. Mango variety - Lagda is highly demanded in south 

Gujarat & Rajstan. Keasar is utilized for small juice industries running in state. 

Rajapuri is famous for pickles but due to low rate farmers' cutting-off this variety. 

PEST 1. JASSIDS are the important as infestation start with flowering. it sucks the 

cell sap from tender shoots & flowers latter turns in black shooty mould. High 

infestation causes complete failure of crops (100% if not controlled). He got very 

good result with Endosulfan & sulpher (1 spray) & Monocrotophos & Bavistin(II spray) 


pesticides. 

PEST 2. FRUIT FLY It was active during mansoon. It causes damage more than 50%. High 

humidity may be good for it's development. Kesar variety is highly susceptible (due 

to sweetness). Fruit flies are major pest of mango because harvested fruits are 

damaged. Traps are good for mgt., but they are not using any management techniques & 

harvest fruits before mansoon, which was chemically ripened afterwards. Others 

farmers using ME traps. 

PEST 3. BLACK LARVA It was minor pest of mango feeding on adjacent fruits only, so 

they are placing dry leaves in between two adjacent fruits. 

GIRDLING Special horticultural practice for max. flowering, direct sunlight, 

continuous flowering which also minimize insect pest & disease incidence. 

BITTERGOURD (BG) & PESTS He grows Bittergourd on 0.1 ha. from 3/4 years. It has a 

very good local market (Valsad, Bilimora) & good market value with high income. 

Nematodes are the big problem in ratoon crops, controlled by drenching of Furadan. 

Fruit flies are active at fruiting period causing damages up to 10%. Aphids are 

managed well by spraying of DDVP. Some farmers are using Tobacco Extract for Aphid 

control. 

#G007 DATE: 18/12/03 TEAM: VSJ Village: Torangam Kiliyar. They are 12 family members, 

on 4 ha. land. Farmer is taking advice for pest problems from Dr. ZP Patel, Asso. 

Res. Scientist, FRS, Gandevi. 

CROPS He is growing sapota, mango, and paddy. 

SAPOTA They have a 350 trees of sapota. Sapota is a profitable, commercial crop, low 

production cost & labour, only harvesting needs more labour (for sapota Rs1 lakh 

income require Rs25000 labour cost while in mango Rs5000). High price when production 

is low & vice versa. No risk of crop failure. 

FRUIT FLIES Now days, FF are the problem. Day by day it's population increasing in 

the area. Milk is ooze out from sapota fruits, due to egg laying injury. They are 

using ME traps supplied by their Cooperative society, gives good control. 

SEED BORER It is new pest problem in this area since last 4-5 years causing heavy 

damage to fruits. Larva feeds on seeds & make exit hole on fruit which affect quality 

of fruits. It's infestation is high during sept - oct. , which loss fruit yield more 

than 15%. 

WILT High rainfall causes high problem of wilt. 

MANGO They has a 150 trees of mango of 25 years. Good performance over sapota, 

profitable; there is a risk of alternate bearing & Couldy condition cause complete 

failure. Their Cooperative society has canning facilities so they got high value. 

Kesar variety is good in this region. 

FRUIT FLIES They are coinciding with fruiting period. Infestation was ranging from 

20-60%. Egg laying enjury is seen completely on fruits & mainly damages matured 

fruits only. 

TRAPS They are using ME traps @ 1traps/ 3trees. traps kill only males. So they are 

doubt about the traps. There is need to kill females. 

HOPPERS This is another pest causing heavy damage if not protected at proper time. He 

using alternate sprays of decamethrin, lamdacyhalothrin, cypermethrin. They are taken 

technical assistance of Dr. Z.P.Patel, Entomologist from fruit research station 


Gandevi. 

#G008 DATE: 03/01/04 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ Village: Chari, Chikhali. He is small farmer with 

0.8 ha. land. Seven members' family lives satisfactory on agricultural produce. 

CROPS Growing Paddy- BG rotation crop pattern. After paddy, land was fallow and water 

available for few months after rains so he thought to take BG small duration crops. 

Taking advantage of available water. BG performing very well, low irrigation, crop 

harvest before summer, Khergam-local market gives good price. Only disease, pests are 

the main problem. 

FRUIT FLY 25% damage to the fruits. Feed inside the fruit. He sprays insecticides 

suggested by sellers & also installs ME traps, but also they never get good control. 

He satisfied by watching fruit flies trapped. Unable to answer WHY? 

WILT (Huharo) It is also major problem, solved with market chemicals. 

PADDY & PEST He grows paddy in rainfed condition. Ear head bug & wilt are the 

problems, managed by spraying insecticides. 

#G009 DATE: 05/05/05 TEAM: ZPP/VSJ/JMS Meeting to evaluate the wide-area MAT in 

mango. The farmers gathered are highly articulate and commercialised, and the 

conversation takes place almost entirely in English. These farmers were already 

familiar with MAT, but the wide-area use of the blocks has provided substantial 

improvements, and they agree with JMS’s supposition that earlier methyl-eugenol 

deployments were not sufficiently strong, widespread or coherent. They are most 

interested in making this technology work. Their intention is to try to persuade the 

cooperatives in the area to make a big investment in it; if unsuccessful they may try 

it in the locality on their own initiative. They think that a 1sqkm deployment, while 

pretty good, still permits flies to enter and losses to occur, and that use over an 

even-larger area would be better. 10sqkm is suggested. 

@~R - THRISSUR 

#R001 DATE:08/03/03 TEAM: JT/CVV. He has 2.80 acres of land. There are four members 

in his family. He is a full time agriculturist and his wife is a teacher. 

CROPS Earlier all were paddy fields and started vegetable cultivation before 8 years. 

All the vegetables for his family is cultivated in his own field. 

CROPS The main cucurbit that he is cultivating is Bitter gourd. Grown twice in a 

year. During March- April and September- October. The crop rotation is Bitter gourdcow 

pea- Bitter gourd. Snake gourd, little gourd and Ridge gourd etc. are cultivating 

in a few area. Cucumber, pumpkin and ash gourd are cultivated as border crops. 

PESTS most serious problem in cucurbits is mosaic. Earlier stage of the crop is 

heavily infested by Jassids, White flies, Leaf feeders, mites etc. After fruit set 

fruit fly is the main problem followed by fruit borers. These pests were not that 

serious when he started cultivation. Pest infestation was moderate before 6 years. 

Uncontrollable pattern of pest incidence started just before 4 years. This year the 

pest incidence was comparatively less in cowpea. The application of chemical 

fertilizers was reduced which resulted in less pest incidence. 

NATURAL ENEMIES He is using the insecticides to a less extent in last 2-3 years 

compared to the neighbouring plots. He has noticed more spiders in his plots. 

FRUIT FLIES Infestation is more in second crop than in first crop. First crop in this 

year the infestation was more. He started cultivation earlier that others. So no 

crops around for damage. So more fruit flies inhabited in his plots. This year 30% 


infestation noticed during first two harvest and thereafter it reduced. Earlier the 

infestation by fruit flies were only 5-10% in bitter gourd. In snake gourd the 

percentage of damage is around 5-10% and earlier it was only 1-2%. Fruit fly 

infestation is very rare in ash gourd, pumpkin and little gourd. Earlier there was no 

fruit fly infestation in little gourd. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Earlier he used to spray only insecticides. For the last three 

years control is mainly by Neem garlic emulsion. He starts the spraying from four 

leaf stage at weekly intervals. When the harvest starts it reduces to once in a 

month. Neem cake is also used for basal application. Besides tulsi trap, which 

responds well, fish trap, which gives average performance and starch- not performing 

well- are using. 

#R002 DATE:08/03/03 TEAM: JT/CVV. He has 30 cents of own land and also cultivating 50 

cents in leased land. There are seven members in his family. All the family members 

are involved in farm activities. 

CROPS Mainly grown are bitter gourd and cowpea. Crop rotation is Bitter gourdcowpea- 

Bitter gourd. Bitter gourd is grown during March - April and also in 

September - October. Snake gourd, little gourd, cucumber, pumpkin, ash gourd etc. are 

also cultivated in a few area. Started cultivation three years ago, after he became a 

KHDP (Kerala Horticultural Development Board) member. No vegetables are bought from 

outside. 

PESTS Main problem in bitter gourd is the incidence of mosaic. Main pest is jassid 

and fruit flies. These pests were noticed when he started cultivation. But he feels 

the infestation was comparatively less during the first year. In snake gourd and 

little gourd too Mosaic is the problem. Fruit fly infestation is also noticed in 

snake gourd. 

FRUIT FLIES Infestation of fruit flies in bitter gourd is 15-20%. Percentage of 

infestation by fruit fly in snake gourd is 2-5%. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL He uses chemical insecticides for fruit fly control. Last season he 

tried with neem oil, which was found effective. 

#R003 DATE:08/03 TEAM: JT/CVV. He has one acre of land. There are four members in his 

family. 

CROPS Main crops grown were bitter gourd and cowpea. Crop rotation is Bitter gourdcowpea- 

Bitter gourd. Other vegetables grown were snake gourd, little gourd and ash 

gourd. He started vegetable cultivation ten years back and all the vegetables for his 

household purpose is cultivated in his field itself. But in this season he is going 

to cultivate rice for a change. The plants were at thestage of transplantation. There 

is some water scarcity so he is much bothered about the date of transplantation. 

PESTS Main pests are jassid, white flies and fruit flies. The pest incidence is very 

severe for the last four years. Earlier the cultivation was by very few farmers. So 

the pest incidence was less. Nowadays the cultivated area is very high which resulted 

in high pest population. Last season all the ash gourd was infested by fruit flies in 

early stage and the entire crop was lost. 

FRUIT FLIES Fruit fly infestation in bitter gourd is 5- 10%. He thinks the 

infestation is less during the early stage of crop, which increases later. In snake 

gourd the damage is only 1-2%. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Chemical Insecticides were used earlier. Last season he didn't use 

any chemicals. He tried with Neem oil emulsion, which was found effective. Banana 

traps were also tried and were effective. 


#R004 DATE:08/03 TEAM: JT/CVV. He is cultivating vegetables in 50-100 cents of land. 

There are six members in the family. 

CROPS Vegetables are cultivating for the last ten years and producing almost all the 

vegetables for the family. Main crops grown were bitter gourd and cowpea. Crop 

rotation is Bitter gourdcowpea- Bitter gourd. Other vegetables grown were snake 

gourd, little gourd, coleus, etc. 

PESTS Main pests are jassid, white flies and fruit flies. The incidence of pest is 

severe for the last four years. The farmers were using more chemical fertilizers, 

which resulted in more pest infestation. 

FRUIT FLIES The infestation rate of fruit flies in bitter gourd is 5-10%. Snake gourd 

the infestation was very less which comes around 1-2%. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Now the use of chemical insecticides are reducing. Last season he 

used only banana trap and neem oil. The infestation was very less during last season 

may be due to the climate. But the fruit production was also less. 

#R005 DATE: 17/05/04 TEAM JT/CVV/JMS. {This is the day of the Elanad wide-area spray. 

"Elanad Farmers' Club." There is in evidence in many ways of Kerala's traditional 

involvement with politics of the left: a project at KAU, run by a politically active 

Marxist professor, is the "Comprehensive Coconut Care Package", giving it the 

pleasing initials "CCCP".} 

#R006 DATE: 17/05/04 TEAM JS/JT/CVV. {In the bank. This is a cooperative bank, 

largely set up by the State to provide financial help to farmers as a deliberate 

social project. The bank is a major participant in cooperative activities, as so many 

of these have a major financial component. Finance can be made available for 

cooperatively-organised agricultural projects by groups of farmers clubbing together 

- indeed, this is largely what the bank is actually for. The notion of using the bank 

to implement cooperative pest management is suggested - the response is that this is 

quite a new idea for them, but that in principle, yes it could fund cooperative 

village-level pest management as a financial investment likely to provide a return.} 

#R007 DATE: 19/05/04 TEAM JT/JMS. Village: Chalakudy. {This is probably the 

friendliest and most engaged of the farmers in the "urban wide-area" trial of MAT 

blocks who had the blocks at farm-level last year, and now at locality-level this 

year. The area is not really urban, but suburban/residential/agricultural with 

prosperous farms of a few acres interspersed with (and often occupied by) 

middle-class professional people who work in Thrissur and so on. The farm is on the 

main road from Thrissur to the airport, Kochi/Ernakulam and the South. Highway 

businesses such as hotels and restaurants are also in evidence. This farmer has a 

collection of miniature bottles of liquor (none of which he seems to have drunk).} 

MAT The MAT blocks work well. This year the blocks were very good control, 0% 

infestation, but control dropped sharply with heavy rain, and there's been a lot of 

damage since. Before the rain messed them up, they were working this year 

{"wide-area"} better than last year, when pest infestation was more then zero. 

Probably due to the wide-area application. He also splashed some jaggery mixed with 

malathion about the place, as a thickish paint on tree trunks, and this may have 

helped. He watches the fruit flies at the blocks in traps (he understands how they 

work). He thinks it will be best to put the blocks a bit away from the fruit trees, 

nearby but not right at them. He suspects that the crowds of male flies attract 

females, and these are not killed, so you don't want to attract them to the fruit 

trees. 

#R008 DATE: 14/10/5. TEAM JT/JMS/CVV. This is the evaluation of the wide-area 

village-level coordinated management. When the wide-area experiment was being set up, 


it was apparent at the first meeting that one individual was trying to stir up 

disagreement and non-cooperation. As JT discussed matters with a group of farmer with 

this individual as a (self-appointed) ringleader, CVV explained to JMS that she was 

worried by these developments, which were a completely new departure from the 

friendly and cooperative tone taken at the previous meetings here. The individual 

leading the revolt against cooperation is arguing that the experiment is to benefit 

the researchers, not the farmers and is basically exploitative. Subsequently this 

group of farmer decide not to cooperate with the experiment. JT reports these event 

to JS by e-mail. The farmers here group into small cooperatives, “self-help groups” 

of about 20 farmers, and these in turn into larger groups of about 200. The size of 

the self-help group is set as the distance a man’s call will carry so that the 

members can hail each other. Farms here are so small that a group of about 150-200 

farmers will occupy only about 20Ha, so we need five of them to take up 1sqkm. Five 

such groups, taking up a contiguous area, were scheduled to take part in this 

experiment, and it is one of these, comprising about a fifth of the area, which has 

now left. JT has persuaded another group, at the opposite end of the block, to join 

in, to bring the area back up to 1sqkm. The whole is being pushed by an energetic and 

ambitious farmer, who is currently the mayor of the little locality, and has greater 

political ambitions and clearly sees the success of the wide-area pest management as 

a political advantage which will cement his position and reputation. He is most 

useful and probably critical to the success. When the experiment is over, it is 

viewed as having been a great success. The group of farmers who had decided not to 

participate have come back, admitting rather ruefully that they were mistaken, and 

are now taking part. Questioned as to their motives for dropping out, they reply that 

they had been approached some years ago by a group of men purporting to be 

researchers, creating an impression quite a bit like JT’s team, but they turned out 

to be strictly commercial, and were only interested in taking the farmers’ money off 

them, and are remembered rather unhappily. JS is of the view that the distrust of 

these individuals is also aligned alongside the long-running tradition in Kerala of 

“left-wing” social activism and a distrust of the forces of unbridled capitalism. The 

groups are now optimistic about the sustainable introduction of wide-area fruit fly 

management, and believe that it will fit into existing cooperative structures. They 

point out that the fact the area is homogeneously gourd, with no patches of forest I 

particular, is important, as the cooperatives would not be able to spray with bait 

any uncultivated areas with no gourds, as to try to persuade farmers to do this would 

be going too far. 

@~M - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 

#M001 DATE:08/03/03 TEAM:JR/AN Village: Vallumkode, Kalliyoor. He is one among the 

progressive farmers (as noted by Kalliyoor Krishi Bhavan authorities) and owns a big 

farm. He had his education up to tenth standard. Total area under his cultivation is 

about 6.5 acres. He owns about 3 acres and the rest is leased @Rs: 4000/-annum. He 

engages about 5 labourers in a day for various operations and the number may vary 

depending on the type of activity in the field. He attends the training programmes 

and extension activities conducted by Agrl. College, Krishi Bhavan and Panchayats. 

His family includes wife, 2 sons and 1 daughter. Eldest daughter has completed her 

plus 2, elder son passed tenth and trying to join military, youngest son studying in 

seventh standard. 

CROPS Mainly his cultivation is centered around vegetables like cowpea (2.5 acre) 

amaranthus (1 acre),cucumber (1 acre) snake gourd (1 acre),bitter gourd (50 cent), 

little gourd (50 cent) and okra (10 cent ). The whole area under his cultivation is 

lowland. Soil type is clayey loam. Previously rice was the main crop but due to 

labour unavailability and high labour charges he shifted his cultivation to 

vegetables. Water source for his cultivation is from canal and the water is collected 

mainly using kakotas. Because of the growing responsibilities towards his family, he 

found that paddy cultivation is not as profitable as he expected so he has shifted 

his pattern to vegetables. Owing to the short period of cultivation and high returns 


he has found this as very reasonable. 

COWPEA & PESTS Trailing type of cowpea is mainly grown in pandals. Cowpea aphid and 

leaf miner is the major pests and mosaic and collar rot are the major diseases. For 

aphids and leaf miner attack malathion and metacid were used and for collar rot 

fungicides like fenvalerate or blitox were drenched in the field. He grows this crop 

due to its luxuriant vegetative growth (leaves can be used as mulch) and reproductive 

growth (producing more number of fruits per plant) and hence fetch good price in the 

market. 

AMARANTHUS & PESTS In amaranthus cultivation he notes leaf webber as the major pest 

and wilting and leaf spot as the major diseases. Since the leafy portion of the plant 

is consumed as a vegetable he avoids using any chemicals but during extreme case of 

attack he drenches the soil with supernatent solution of cow dung, malathion and 

fytolan mixture. 

CUCUMBERS & PESTS He grows creeping type of cucumber plants. The damage by leaf hairy 

caterpillar, mosaic and premature drying of fruits were noted (might be due to vine 

breakage during cultural operations). He opines that there is market fluctuation in 

the price of the crop, so it is not extensively grown. 

GOURDS & PESTS Cucurbits like snake gourd and bitter gourd are grown especially 

during January-March and September to December. Various cultural operations for both 

these crops are almost the same. The main pests for snake gourd is fruit fly, 

followed by snake gourd caterpillar and the disease mainly includes mosaic, little 

leaf and downy mildew. In bitter gourd plots also he observed fruit fly as the major 

pest followed by small mites sucking the juice of leaves. The disease noted was 

little leaf, bacterial wilt and mosaic. According to him nearly half of the fruits 

were damaged by fruit flies. Snake gourd caterpillar mainly eats the leafy portion 

and it doesn't affects the fruit. But the maggots of fruit flies exploit the pulp 

inside and thereafter the entire fruit will turn yellow and thus making it unfit for 

consumption i.e., it actually reduces yield. So he is more worried about the attack 

of fruit fly. Coming to the disease he is equally afraid with little leaf and mosaic 

since the crop will be stunted in its growth and no new flushes will be produced 

thereby preventing flowering. 

GOURD PEST CONTROLS During that time he used to spray either Malathion or fenvalerate 

whichever is available in the market. But spraying was not effective and he changed 

different chemicals from time to time to reduce the attack. He is not interested in 

spraying chemicals in his field, but to avoid heavy crop havoc he sprays fenvalerate, 

malathion in his cucurbit fields. For fruit fly control in both cucurbit fields he 

practiced using banana traps after attending the training programmes of extension 

department. Now he practices 'palayamkodan' fruit pieces (i.e. after taking a single 

banana fruit he removes the skin and cuts it in to two pieces and then smeared with 

furadan granules on the surface of fruit)in coconut shell along with spraying 

malathion + jaggery mixture. Traps containing banana will be removed every week and 

spraying will be done twice in a month. Another control measure is that he collects 

such fruits and throws it in the canal. 'Thulasi' is considered as a holy plant and 

he knows it as a natural repellant to many pests. As banana is easily accessible he 

is more fond of using banana traps. He was unaware of starch -jaggery or fish traps . 

He knows that any sweety material along with some poison attract the fruit flies. 

ORGANIC/EXPORT PRODUCTION He cultivates little gourd (koval) exclusively for export 

purpose and hence organic products are used in the farm. For cultivation in that 

particular field he uses organic manures like poultry manure, farm yard manure and 

coconut cakes. When disease or pest incidence occurs he manually collects the damaged 

fruits and destroys. If incidence is very severe he sprays neem based preparations 

like neemazal or neem oil but actually he is less bothered about the pest/ disease 

attack in his koval field. According to him he is not facing any financial loss by 


the damage due to pest or disease attack. Export authorities (i.e,VFPCK - Vegetable 

and fruit promotion council of Kerala) collect the damaged fruits also at the same 

rate of fresh fruits. So he is not facing any threat by organic farming. 

FARMING PRACTICES In the homestead he rears two cows, 4 goats, 2 rabbits and a dozen 

of love birds. He has got additional income by the selling the produce and young ones 

of above animals He recycles the kitchen waste, cowdung and urine for farming 

purpose. He uses cow's urine in a diluted form (1 litre of cow's urine diluted in 10 

litres of water) for the healthy growth of the crop. He recommends this as an organic 

pesticide and also as a growth regulator. Even though he is a traditional farmer he 

doesn't advice his children to undertake farming as a profession because he opines 

that if we investRs.1000/- for cultivation, Rs.900/- will be either profit or loss. 

INNOVATION & EXPERIMENTS He has very good contacts with the various extension workers 

of the college and keeps abreast of the latest developments related to the use of the 

various pest management practices. He has also carries out demonstration trials on 

his field as part of the projects in the College. So he is willing to experiment the 

various traps given to him as part of the projects, some of them which he finds very 

effective and promising. One of these traps which he has very high opinion is the 

Cuelure and Methyl eugenol trap. According to him those were very useful in trapping 

all those flies in his neighbourhood. 

#M002 DATE:08/03/03 TEAM: JR/AN Village Kalliyoor. A small farmer. 

FARM SYSTEM He is mainly engaged in earning income from his homestead (a peculiar 

type of farming noted in Kerala).He opines that the fruits and vegetables which is 

required for him and family members can be obtained without much cost from his 

surroundings itself . He selects a particular portion of his surrounding where there 

is abundant sunlight, water and which is highly fertile for raising the crops. The 

space for raising each crop depends on the number of family members; extend of shade 

in his farm etc. According to him he needs one cent (40 sq.m) for each member. He has 

constructed a fence around his field to prevent entry of cattle, dogs etc. 

FRUIT & VEGETABLE CROPS & ROTATION On his field is spread little gourd, chekkurmanis 

and (green leafy amaranthus) trailing cowpea. In one part of his field i.e., in 1/4 

area he raises vegetables and fruits. Mainly the fruit crops in that area include 

banana, papaya, small lemon, capsicum and pineapple .He recommends these crops to be 

concentrated in one area to avoid interference of these crops with others. In the 

shady portion of these crops mainly ginger, turmeric, amorphophallus, colocasia and 

yams are raised. In the rest 3/4 area of his farm vegetables are grown. He rotates 

mainly leafy vegetables, cucurbits, chilli, bhindi, brinjal, moringa, and tomato in 

his farm. He opines that if the same crop is raised season after season the chances 

of pest and disease incidence will be more. Previously he had one such experience in 

which the whole amaranthus grown in the next season was damaged by bacterial blight 

and he also had seen the severity of shoot and fruit borer attack when brinjal was 

raised in two consecutive seasons in his neighbours farm. 

VEGETABLE CULTIVATION For raising chilli, amaranthus, brinjal and tomato he sows the 

seeds in nursery and after 45 to 50 days he transplants it to the main field and 

during severe summer he provides shade to the seedlings. Direct sowing is practiced 

in the main field for bhindi, brinjal, cowpea and cucurbits. During rainy season he 

grows crops mainly in raised beds and during summer season seedlings are planted in 

the channels. 

CUCURBIT CULTIVATION For cucurbit cultivation he uses poles and coir to construct the 

pandal. He adds poultry manure, cowdung for healthy growth of the crop. With the good 

source of manures the bitter gourd flowered enormously. He also grows bitter gourd + 

snake gourd + cowpea in a single field. Since these are all having trailing nature no 

additional cost is required and chances of crop failure will also be less. For 


improving the fertility condition of the soil he grows cowpea alone after the harvest 

of cucurbits. In a mixed cropping of above three he grows cowpea as a border crop. 

BITTER GOURD FLY INFESTATION As the fruit initiation started many of the small and 

medium sized fruits were having a brownish yellow colour and later fell to the ground 

also. With some fruits he approached the krishi bhavan authorities and they examined 

the fruit and showed him the small maggots inside. 

BITTER GOURD FLY CONTROL HISTORY The krishi bhavan authorities recommended him to 

spray Malathion mixed with jaggery in the field at fortnightly intervals, cover the 

fruits with polythene cover and also advised him to use banana fruits in coconut 

shell smeared with carbofuran granules. He had only about 30 to 40 plants in the 

field. Since the damage was severe in the field he was forced to throw all his fruits 

to the nearby canal. This actually helped him a lot and when the flowers came next 

time with the second dose of manure he gave an initial spray to the field and later 

hanged some banana traps here and there; along with this he used newspapers to cover 

the fruit. After first day itself he observed small flies in the trap (he mention it 

as big mosquito flies) and he was happy that the damage was less during this time. In 

some news paper covered (as it is cheaper and easily available he preferred news 

paper cover) fruits the initial symptom of brownish yellowing occurred again and it 

might be due to improper covering of fruits as it enlarges and also the paper was 

torn off after a few days. 

PESTICIDE AWARENESS In each harvest he sells only15 to 20 kg of bitter gourd fruits 

to the nearby markets and the rest he uses for home consumption. He is very much 

aware of the toxicity of chemicals and so he harvests the fruits only after 3 or 4 

days. 

SNAKE GOURD FLY INFESTATION In snake gourd field also he noted the yellowing of 

fruits and he gives less importance to the attack, since he has only less number of 

plants. Whenever a discoloration to the fruit is noticed he plucks the fruit and use 

for vegetable purpose (after cutting the damaged portion). For consumption purpose no 

vegetables are purchased from the markets. 

FARM PHILOSOPHY This small scale farmer is very much satisfied with his homestead 

farming. He is a retired school master who very well knows the hazards of large scale 

use of pesticides in vegetables. His is a nuclear family with his wife (house wife), 

a son going for small jobs in the nearby neighbourhood and his daughter married off. 

So with this mode of cultivation he is assured that his family gets fresh and 

pesticide free vegetables and because of this he is mentally satisfied. 

#M003 DATE:08/03/03 TEAM: JR/AN Village Neyattinkara. He is a medium farmer residing 

at the border part of Kerala state and owns about 2 acres of land. 

COOPERATION He is a member of the group farming community where farmers pool their 

resources and harvest the produce and the returns are divided based on the size of 

the holdings. 

CROPS Banana intercropped in young coconut gardens is about 1 acre and 50 cents for 

cucurbits like bitter gourd, snake gourd and rest 50 cents for cowpea. 

MOVE FROM RICE TO VEGETABLES Before growing banana, cucurbits and cowpea he raised 

rice crop throughout the low lying land. He faced severe threats from the rice 

cultivation due to lesser yield from the crop, adverse climatic condition and attack 

by rice bug. For raising vegetables he can utilize the family labour as the works are 

not as tedious as in rice crop. 

VEGETABLE CULTIVATION In cultivating vegetables he concentrated mainly in cowpea, 

snake gourd, bitter gourd, chilli , amaranthus and brinjal. He actually rotates all 


these crops in his field mainly selection depending on the market demand. Cowpea will 

be intercropped in pandal either with snake gourd or bitter gourd and amaranthus 

intercultivated in the raised beds of cucurbit field. 

CUCURBIT PESTS Major pest noted for snake gourd was fruit flies followed by pumpkin 

beetle and the disease noted was mosaic, bacterial wilt and powdery mildew. In bitter 

gourd field the main attack was by fruit flies followed by epilachna beetle, jassids 

, white flies and the diseases were phyllody and mosaic. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROLS For controlling fruit flies he resorted to his neighbors practice. 

His neighbors also had a small farm more or less growing the same crops. Due to 

fragmented small holdings of the farm three of the farmers have pooled their land to 

facilitate various cultural operations. He was convinced when his fellow farmer 

encouraged the use of traps like banana, jaggery in coconut shells for trapping fruit 

flies. Now in his farm the traps for catching fruit flies include banana trap and 

jaggery trap. In banana trap he uses red banana along with boiled jaggery for 

catching fruit flies. He replaces the trap every week by adding so water in the 

residue (after removing the dead fruit flies). He catches a good number of flies by 

this method and he also uses boiled jaggery (in a gummy consistency) and furadan 

alone for catching fruit flies. The difference from the recommended practice was that 

red banana pieces smashed along with jaggery and furadan or either of the components 

alone with furadan to catch fruit flies. When attack is severe they spray some 

chemicals (either rogour, metacid, mancozeb any of these chemicals which is available 

in the market, they don't remember the names but showed us the used up packets) which 

may be either fungicide or insecticide to control the pest and disease. They also 

practiced using banana pieces in coconut shells painted outside with yellow colour 

which actually serves a double purpose of collecting fruit flies and sticks other 

flies like pumpkin beetles and other saprophytic flies. Anyway after the initial 

spraying the pest and disease of the crop will be less and they will continue the 

same procedure week after week to get good yields from their plots. 

FLY CONTROL EXPERIMENTATION The attack of fruit flies became severe and during this 

time only we reached their plots and we gave cue lure traps to install in their 

fields .The next time when we visited his field more labourers came to the spot and 

they were thrilled to show us the count of fruit flies in the traps which we kept and 

they started demanding more traps when we visit next time .We also had installed the 

protein hydrolysate of various concentration in one litre plastic bottles but the 

count we obtained was less. They started reusing the bottles (which was kept for 

experimenting various concentrations of protein hydrolysate) instead of coconut 

shells for keeping banana pieces smashed with jaggery, water and furadan. According 

to him the plastic bottles were more convenient in the field as the direct entry of 

water from the pandal could be prevented during the rainy season and during summer 

season easy drying of banana, water, and furadan mixture was prevented. If we cut a 

plastic bottle and some sugary attractant and water without adding the poison itself 

the flies will die due to suffocation and the dead flies in the liquid has a 

particular power to attract more flies thereby avoiding the use of poison and this he 

practised in his farm out of curiosity. 

BIRD SCARING In spite of attack by insects and disease he also notices the attack of 

sparrow in fruits of snake gourd and cowpea. To ward off the birds from the field he 

uses an aluminum bucket inside of this a stone tied with a plastic thread and 

connection of this extends throughout the field and to a coconut tree near his house. 

The sound of the stone hitting the bucket wards off the flies ie, by sitting in the 

house itself he can practice this method. 

#M004 DATE: 08/03/03 TEAM: JR/AN Village Kakkamoola. A small farmer. 

CROPS Growing crops like little gourd, coconut, banana, bittergourd and cowpea. 

Little gourd (koval) in an area of 50 cents, snake gourd or bitter gourd or cowpea in 


50 cents, banana intercropped in coconut gardens occupying 25 cents and cowpea alone 

in 25 cents . 

LITTLE GOURD CULTIVATION Mainly he earns his income from little gourd (koval) 

cultivation. According to him a koval crop can stand in the field as a good yielder 

for at least two years and hence he could save the additional cost of replanting a 

crop. He raises the crop in a pandal and ordinary coir which is used by farmers is 

not practiced, instead plastic thin threads are used for horizontal and vertical 

tying to the poles. He harvests the crop twice in a week i.e., Wednesday and 

Saturday. For sale of produce he along with the nearby farmers in the area hire a van 

and carry the produce to chalai market in the Trivandrum city. He thinks that this is 

more remunerative than small scale selling to the nearby markets. Koval is cultivated 

mainly in the lowland situation where previously rice was the main crop. From each 

harvest from 50 cents he gets around 50 kg of koval and he sells @4/kg. He took loan 

from the primary society nearby for an amount of Rs: 2000/- for which he repays 

@200/- month. He is also practicing intercropping in the koval field in the initial 

stages of growth of the crop. He raises amaranthus as the canopy of the crop has not 

spread but in the later stages when some amount of sunlight is available he grows 

amorphophallus or the shady areas in the field is left fallow. So he gets profit from 

amaranthus /amorphophallus + koval. 

LITTLE GOURD PEST MANAGEMENT In summer he practices cropping in levelled land but 

during rainy season he constructs mounds around the root system to facilitate easy 

drainage and being a perennial and hardy crop, the attack of pest and disease is very 

meagre. But also he sprays fenthion or malathion weekly in the koval plot. 

SNAKE/BITTER GOURD & OTHER VEGETABLES Concentrating on the rest 50 cents of land he 

grows either snake gourd, bitter gourd or cowpea depending on seed availability and 

market demand. Previously in the same field he used to grow amaranthus, bhindi and 

brinjal. But in amaranthus due to heavy leaf damage by leaf spot and leaf webber 

attack, he started cultivating bhindi. Even though it was more remunerative than 

amaranthus, due to fruit and shoot borer attack and to heavy wilting the control 

measures became difficult. So now he is engaged in cultivation of snake gourd/bitter 

gourd/cowpea. 

EVOLUTION OF FLY CONTROL IN SNAKE/BITTER GOURD When he was growing snake gourd/bitter 

gourd he was more interested in spraying chemicals rather than keeping banana or 

thulasi traps. During that time he believed that if we apply chemicals then there 

will be sudden death of maggots inside the fruit and only slight yellow colour 

persists in the fruit which he can adjust during the sale of produce. If he keeps 

traps it will attract flies from neighboring plots also. These flies will only suck 

the sap and they will not cause any serious damage to the crop. He opined that 

maggots are causing damage and hence he was more interested in destroying the maggots 

in the fruit. But later on when the people from VFPCK (Vegetable and fruit promotion 

council kerala) used to visit his plot and they recommended the use of traps to 

control flies. They made him clear that these flies are laying the eggs on the 

surface of fruits and the emerging maggots are causing the damage. So it became 

necessary for him to control the flies. So now he has kept banana traps and thulasi 

traps intermingled in the field @ 1 trap for 4 plants and he is satisfied with its 

performance and will continue to keep this trap. He also practiced use of other traps 

like fermented toddy + furadan, ripe pineapple fruit pieces with a small amount of 

yeast and furadan. According to him all these traps catch fruit flies and he keeps 

either depending on the availability. He mainly grows snake gourd-chilli in summer 

season (January-April), next season bitter gourd-tomato and in June-September when 

heavy rain is there he keeps the field fallow. According to his opinion if he raise 

the crop during that period it may be lost in severe monsoon or by pest / disease 

attack. 

BANANA AND COWPEA PRODUCTION Mainly he grows banana in 25 cents i.e., robusta, 


palayamkodan during the period from Nov-Dec to August -September mainly depending on 

the availability of good suckers (sword suckers ). Later on if heavy rain is not 

available he grows vegetables like cowpea which completes its growth in 3 months is 

raised in the field (mainly bush type ). Since it completes its growth in a short 

time the field may be ready for raising the second crop of banana. Cowpea according 

to him is a good crop where chances of attack by maggots are less. This crop also 

grows luxuriantly without any additional input to the field. Yield obtained is also 

considerable. There are only minor attacks by leaf miner and aphids and he controls 

them by removing the affected parts. 

#M005 DATE:08/03/04 TEAM: JR/MS Village Thannimoodu. He is a homestead farmer owning 

only about 60 cents of land. Previously he had about 2 acres of land and due to heavy 

debts he was forced to sell his land. With this meagre land area also he could meet 

the necessities of his family. He has a son 6 years of age and wife engaged in 

household activities. Krishi Bhavan authorities have collected soil sample from his 

field and he is waiting for its result. 

COCONUT CROP & PESTS Major crop in his homestead is coconut of different age groups. 

In older palms pepper is twined and thereby he could get additional income from the 

same unit of land. He is mainly facing the threat by mite infestation followed by 

coreid bug and mealy bug infestation. Root wilt and leaf rot in coconut were also 

noted in a few plants. The production from coconut palm is declining mainly due to 

pest and disease attack and due to old age of palms. In coconut no routine plant 

protection operation was done. Yearly once they resort to application of cowdung. So 

now he is interested in under planting of new palms in his field. From coconut he 

could get around Rs5 to 6 per nut. 

CROP: ARECANUT Arecanut is also grown in the interspaces of young coconut gardens. 

Due to decline in market value of arecanut he concentrates less on its cultivation. 

He sells mainly the produce from coconut and arecanut only to the small sellers in 

his area and hence he could avoid the transportation cost. From arecanut he can get 

Rs30 per 100 nuts. 

CROP: PEPPER He also complains about the less market value of pepper. The yield from 

pepper plants is higher and he could get 10 to 15 kg/plant from each harvest. 

Normally he is not observing any serious pest or disease attack in his pepper field. 

CROP: VEGETABLES He also cultivates vegetables like brinjal, amarathus, chilli for 

meeting his home needs and also a small quantity of each vegetable he sells in the 

market. 

ANIMALS He is also interested in animal husbandry operations like rearing cows and he 

gets around 8 to 10 litres per day. He wishes to sell the milk to nearby houses and 

by this he could get Rs15 /litre whereas to the society he could fetch only 9/litre. 

BANANA & SPICES He used to grow banana in his field but due to heavy infestation by 

banana pseudostem weevil (for reducing weevil attack he used to apply furadan) he 

gradually shifted to spice crops like ginger and turmeric. He sells the produce in 

the form of dried ginger. Though the land in his area is undulating topography he 

doesn't grow other plantation crops in his field like coffee or rubber. 

#M006 DATE:08/03/04 TEAM: JR/MS Village Thannimoodu. A big farmer. 

CROPPING SYSTEM He cultivates different crops like coconut, rubber, mango, guava, 

tamarind, clove, tapioca, banana, cowpea, guinea grass, pepper and vegetables like 

snakegourd, amaranthus, cucumber and chilli. He is cultivating all these crops in the 

leased land and he pays about 2000 per year for each ela (a continuous strip of land 

where rice was the major crop but now shifted to the above crops). In ela cultivation 

there will be separation of different crops in the field by clayey bunds smothered 


with grass. When the field is left fallow there will be grazing by animals and hence 

the scarcity of forage for milch animals is avoided. He owns a rubber estate at a far 

away place (at border near Tamil Nadu) and he selected this place mainly due to low 

rent of land. He is residing in a small rented house near his field mainly to 

supervise the day to day operations in his field. Irrigation is mainly carried out by 

water from the canal. During rainy season the water will be mainly muddy and during 

summer periods there will be shortage of water for cultivation which will be 

rectified by proper selection ie, drought tolerant crops like tapioca and guinea 

grass will be grown and rest of the land will be left fallow. In land which is of 

undulating nature terracing was done and in the terraces rubber is the main crop 

grown and in the interspaces pineapple and cover crops like calapagonium were grown. 

COCONUT PESTS In coconut field around his residence place mainly attack by rhinoceros 

beetle, red palm weevil and leaf rot were observed. 

INFORMATION SOURCES Normally the farmer depends on the advice of chemical dealers. 

Rarely does he approach agricultural scientists or officers. 

MANGO PESTS {Normally in homesteads of Kerala there will be 2 or 3 mango trees.} In 

the farmer's field also there were three mango trees and during our survey time the 

flowering started. In mango there was attack of shoot midge, leaf webbers, and 

magohoppers. The variety in his field was varika mango and according to him the fruit 

fly infestation was not noticed yet, but he observed some stray incidence of attack 

by maggots that were yellow in colour but he has never seen the adult flies. He was 

not practising the use of any baits or insecticide to control the maggots. 

RUBBER & VANILLA In rubber the latex from the stem is chiselled out and collected in 

coconut shells and later used for rubber sheet preparation. After collecting the 

latex from 10 to 12 trees he obtains about 500 to 750 g of milk and this is used for 

preparing a single sheet which fetches about Rs 30 to 40 in the market - this is very 

low when compared to the previous price of 70 to 80 and so he wishes to grow vanilla, 

which is fetching better market value and climatic conditions are suitable for 

growing. 

GOURDS & FRUIT FLIES He also grows vegetables in a small area. He raises snakegourd, 

bittergourd and coccinia. The fruit fly infestation is severe in some cases for which 

they spray insecticides. We advised them to set up traps. We also explained them 

different cultural methods 

#M007 DATE:08/03/04 TEAM: JR/MS Village Thannimoodu. A central government servant who 

had his 20 years of service in the Supreme court, New Delhi, and obtained a voluntary 

retirement from the service and now engaged in farming and allied activities in the 

field. He considers that farming provides him mental satisfaction and keeps him in 

good health. He had a severe back pain problem and had to spend a lot of money for 

treatment and so he obtained a voluntary retirement from the service. His wife is 

employed as a school teacher and his only daughter doing primary education. The 

produce obtained is sold to the near by markets. He employs about 5 or 6 labourers in 

the field daily and the scheduled time of work will be between 8am to 2pm @130/day or 

between 8am to 4 pm @140/day. 

CROPS The main crops grown include rubber, banana, coconut, tapioca, and vegetables 

like cowpea, chilli, bhindi, and snake gourd and amaranthus. 

PEST MANAGEMENT He is not aware of using any kind of traps in his field, only thing 

they do is spraying the chemicals in the field as it may ward off the pest suddenly. 

RUBBER CULTIVATION He is having a good command in growing rubber and major part of 

his income is earned from the rubber sheet sold to the market. Depending on the grade 

of his rubber sheet (either A or B grade) which is mainly connected with the type of 


smoking and contamination in the latex he may fetch a fixed price for his commodity 

in the market. Rubber sheet preparation is by using rubber latex along with a 

coagulant namely formic acid or acetic acid. In the early morning he collects latex 

from different coconut shells and pours it in the tray. Usually he gives a rest 

period for tapping when the drought is very severe or when there is heavy rainfall. 

He is practising inter cropping in rubber plantation with pineapple and later on in 

the season with calapagonium. 

BANANA PESTS & CONTROL Main problem in the banana field was attack by pseudostem 

weevil followed by rhizome weevil and bunchy top of banana. He is practising use of 

furadan granules in the leaf axils at various stages of the crop but only he found 

temporary control and so we recommended the use of chlorpyriphos 2ml/l in the leaf 

axil. In tapioca spirally white fly incidence was more. 

#M008 DATE:08/03/04 TEAM: JR/MS Village Thanimoodu. A farmer who is doing farming 

operation along with his job as a horoscoper. He also does pooja in nearby temple 

(early morning and evening). 

CHANGING FARM PHILOSOPHY He gives more importance in cultivating different crops, 

also aware of the importance of organic farming and engages labourers for various 

operations in the field. According to him the sincerity of newer generation towards 

farming has lessened nowadays and all are trying to purchase the commodities from the 

market. The size of holding of each farmer has also declined thereby reducing the 

possibility of mechanization in the field and hence accounting more for labour cost. 

CROPS Crops grown by him include coconut, banana, rice, tapioca, cowpea, vegetables 

like amaranthus, bhindi and snakegourd.. 

RICE & PESTS Rice is grown in area of 3 acres. For pest management mainly resort to 

pesticides like ekalux, malathion etc. Rice leaf roller, case worm, thrips are of 

common occurrence. 

FARMER PROGRESS Farmers are not at all aware of Integrated management practices like 

use of Trichogramma cards, use of pheromone traps and biocontrol agents. They are not 

aware of biofertiliser except vermicompost that also they are not practising it. 

BANANA PESTS Banana crop mainly suffers from the attack of pseudostem weevil, rhizome 

weevils etc. They use only the application of furadan granules. We advised them to 

pour chlorpyrifos solution in their leaf axils. 

FRUIT FLY MANAGEMENT Snake gourd is grown in wide area. Fruit flies are seen as a 

major pest of the time. We told them to dispose the fruit either in water or deep in 

to he soil so as to prevent the emergence of adult flies after pupation. We also 

advised them to use different bait traps using banana and tulsi (ocimum), jaggery 

etc. We set up methyl eugenol and cue lure traps in their field. 

GOURD PESTS Koval Coccinia is grown in sufficiently large area as it fetches good 

market value. Recently bittergourd is facing some problems. Virus, mite and hopper 

together caused serious situation in bittergourd. Coccinia is facing fruitfly 

infestation and gall attack. 

COWPEA PESTS Cow pea is affected by pod borers. Farmers are spraying monocrotophos 

for their management. 

AMARANTHUS PESTS Amarathus is affected by Colletotrichum leaf spot for the management 

of which they are spraying cowdung slurry along with fungicides. 

#M009 DATE:08/03/04 TEAM: JR/MS Village Karipooru. He cultivates crops both in owned 

and leased lands. An outstanding farmer. He owns a shop in Nedumancaud town where he 


sells his own produce. 

CROPS He grows almost all vegetables like bittergourd, snakegourd, little gourd, 

cucumber and pumpkin. Amaranthus cultivation is found to be profitable. They use 

seeds of their farm only for next crop. He has vegetable shop in town where he sells 

the produce from his own farm. 

CUCURBIT PROBLEMS This time untimely heavy rain has ruined his cucumber crop. 

FRUIT FLY & CONTROL In his field we could see the fruit fly infestation in pumpkin 

and cucumber. They are not using any bait traps for fruitfly control. They are simply 

resorting to spraying insecticides like malathion, monocrotophos, rogor, etc. 

BANANA CROP Banana cultivation is practised in large area in leased land. Mainly they 

grow Nedran, robusta, red banana, etc. 

GOURD ADVANTAGES They grow crops based on market demand. Recently little gourd is 

fetching better market price. Moreover it is rather free of heavy infestation by 

insect pests. The medicinal property of little gourd also is another factor. 

CROP ROTATION Normally farmers follows crop rotation. They raise cowpea after 

bittergourd. 

CULTURE & MARKETS They grow vegetables and banana so that the harvest of this may 

coincide with onam season. Onam is the festival season. Presenting banana bunches 

(Kazchakkula) was an old custom. However a lot of vegetables and banana are required 

now during onam since all rich and poor prepare sadya (vegetarian feast) during the 

four day long onam celebrations and farmers fetch better market value for their 

produce. Similarly during vishu farmers raise cucumber (cucumber is one of the 

important items in Vishukkani). Vishu means the coming of new year according to 

Malayalam (language of Kerala) calendar. It falls in April. It is an auspicious 

occasion. In the early morning on vishu day people wish to see vishukkani which is 

arranged as a collection of fresh fruits and vegetables, gold and silver, all 

arranged in front of the idol of deity and traditional lamp. 

#M010 DATE:20/10/04 TEAM: JR/BN/JMS This is the evaluation of the village-level widearea 

application. It was carried out largely by the local cooperative, which is small 

and village-based and run by a clearly dynamic, bespectacled individual who we talk 

to in his little office. He is clearly very busy and in a hurry and gives little 

attention to the discussion. The experiment has been most useful and the villagers 

are hoping to introduce it as a regular activity of the cooperative. 

@~B - BHUBANESWAR {In this part of Orissa some villages have specialized in the 

production of one or two vegetables. Over the years a large contiguous area of the 

villages were brought under the cultivation of a single vegetable with some other 

crop supporting the rotation for supplementing the income. In case of bitter gourd 

also a few villages have specialized exclusively for its cultivation in a large 

compact areas. These areas have developed well defined markets and they their produce 

cater to the exact specifications of demand from consumers there. It is grown as 

summer crop (Jan-June) as well as winter crop(Sep - March) in Coastal Orissa. It was 

noted that bitter gourd cultivation started 50 years back by now has become the most 

important cash crop. The area comes under coastal climate having annual rainfall of 

1500mm concentrated from mid June to September. Villages where interview conducted 

are 15 KM away from city head quarter along the national highway.} 

#B001 DATE:04/03/03 TEAM:JMS/HSS/ASK. Village Kumarbasta (host of BAT/MAT trial). 5 

acres of bitter gourd. 

BITTER GOURD HISTORY 1 Bitter gourd was introduced here from that other village. {It 


is grown thanks to an ingenious rustic pandal, made of snapped off stalks of a 

straight-stemmed bush called Poksuan - the stems can be gathered in the bush and when 

stuffed into the ground in bunches, splay out about 4 feet above the ground to a 

bushy top along a series of which climbing gourds can be grown.} It was introduced 

about 50 years ago, gourd and poksuan together. BG not grown before poksuan was 

available - a package. 

VEGETABLE AREAS AND MARKETS Why are vegetables grown in distinct areas? Water 

availability, labour availability and access to markets - 3 limiting factors. Do 

gourd areas run along roads? No - in interiors away from roads. There is less gourds 

near roads because near roads people can work outside agriculture, in off-farm work; 

away from the roads people have to farm to live. BG is in fact not very perishable, 

and can keep. Lorry drivers buy here and take away to quite distant markets - 

particularly Jarkand (Ranchi). A speciality here near the coasts is winter BG which 

is possible though too cold inland, so grown here in winter for export inland. The 

fly comes with higher temperatures. 

RIDGE GOURD SEASON Summer - ridge gourd, bindhi, coriander. Seeded in May. This ends 

at end of July, August preparation for BG back again; sowing BG in first week in 

October. After the summer crop they rest for 15-20 days. {Elsewhere: BG is planted in 

mid-August, fruits from October-Nov; some confusion here, perhaps as a three-man 

translation chain JS (English) - HS (Hindi) - AK (Oriya)}. 

PRICES OF BITTER & RIDGE GOURDS Economically, is BG more important than the summer 

crops, or the same? BG yields more and raises more money than summer crops. Quite a 

bit more, apparently. BG price is better than ridge gourd because exported - summer 

ridge gourd goes only to Bhubaneswar, where the market floods with it and the price 

falls. 

RIDGE GOURD PRICE FLUCTUATIONS RG in Bhubaneswar market - In the early season the 

price is high, then it falls and rises again. So production tends to rise smoothly 

through the season; but fly infestation starts off low and then surges relatively 

sharply towards the end; so the production of uninfested fruit rises then tails off a 

bit when infestation takes hold; so price is an inverse of uninfested production - 

initially high, then dipping then recovering. 

INSECTICIDE ON BITTER GOURD He does a weekly spray of insecticide. Last sprayed 6 

days ago {i.e. Feb 26th?}. The whole field. Throughout the whole BG season. The spray 

interval increases from 6 days to 10-12 at the end. Why? Aphids become less; leaf 

curl becomes less; production goes down as plants age. {Therefore production dip at 

season-end not necessarily due to pests? - To be sure we'ld need to know if discarded 

fruit production also rises.} 

INSECTICIDE IN SUMMER {There are 11 farmers by now, all of us sat companionably 

cross-legged in a network of low bushy tunnels under the Poksuan pandal. It is 

surprisingly dark.} Is insecticide used on the summer crops too? Yes, but less. Why 

less? Pest attack is less because it's so hot. "Not even a dog can survive so how can 

an insect?" If it rains, FF gets worse. 

NEEM Neem is very smelly; consumers hate it so it needs a preharvest interval. 

FRUIT FLY What is done about FF? Nothing because he doesn't know about FF as such. He 

knew of the damage and loss, but had not even seen the maggots until we pointed them 

out. He followed us about and saw the difference in losses in our 

experimentally-treated BAT plots when we pointed them out. Symptom for farmers is 

simply "discarded" but he can see that our treatments reduced it. One young farmer 

(Farmer 2) speaks up that he knows about FF. How so? Five years ago. He opened the 

fruit and saw the grubs inside. Not taught by extensionists. He can identify the 

maggots only - not adults - but he does know that insecticide sprays don't control 


it. When JS mimes a jumping FF maggot with his hand, the first farmer and the 

generality of the company laugh with apparent recognition - this aspect is apparently 

familiar. 

BITTER GOURD HISTORY 2 Farmer 2 says FF got worse about 5 years ago. Why? This was 

when he started growing BG. What did he grow before BG? Nothing in that plot. So why 

BG? He saw how others were making money from BG. BG always makes money, even when 

pests attack. 

BITTER GOURD CONSUMPTION AT HOME Do the BG growers eat large amounts of BG? Not 

really, once a week - it's a vegetable like any other. But they do store it from the 

season, sliced and dried. It's eaten once a week both fresh and dry. Is any use made 

of its alleged medical properties? Not for them. {Prescribed in Ayurvedic medicine 

for diabetes, but it's the leaf, not the fruit.} Yes, says someone else. Sabji (Sag) 

is made from tender leaves and used against diabetes. The oldest man nods vigorously. 

Tender leaves are dried, ground to powder and kept in a jar. Then eaten for breakfast 

as a general tonic. The old man says he likes the leaves and would eat them anyway. 

Do they taste bitter? Yes. Does everybody eat them? Yes. 

HISTORY OF PESTICIDES For how long have sprays been used? For ever, as far as these 

relatively young farmers are concerned - they can't remember a time without sprays. 

But earlier on the spray frequency was less. Now it's increasing day-by-day. It was 

monthly, now weekly. How long ago was it monthly? 5 years. So pest infestation has 

gone up. Why? Because the area under BG has increased a lot {quite a sophisticated 

answer without any prompting from us}. The insecticide most used is dimethoate. Less 

good than it was. Not banned - it was and still is common. Methomil has been banned. 

A shame. "The strongest pesticide." Most commonly used is a mix of fungicide 

(Barestin {?}), insecticide (endosulfan/thiodan, or rogor or dimethoate) and plant 

manure. Dimethoate is getting worse. Is endosulfan also getting worse? No - 

dimethoate was much the best, but has now got worse and is on a par with endosulfan. 

PEST CONTROL ADVICE Insecticide comes from the city (Bhubaneswar). Advice comes from 

the shopkeeper. They take in BG to sell, say "What is this?" and follow the advice. 

FRESH SEED AND DISEASES What will reduce pest infestation? Fresh seed: they now 

reseed their own seed and think this is tired and so pests get worse, because tired 

seed allows pest to develop resistance to pesticide. (On discussing more closely:-) 

mosaic virus a problem on the increase round here, and this is where tired seed 

helps. Leaf curl is rampant and so they spray pesticide like anything. 

VILLAGE COMPETITION This village gets BG yields much bigger than the next village. 50 

quintals/day. The other village takes less care. We learnt the technology from the 

next village but now we are better than them. JS: Oh ho - we'll ask them and see if 

they agree. "Oh they will." 

PRIORITIES Interested in two problems - leaf curl and FF. 

#B002 DATE:04/03 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village Pitapalli. The total farm area is around 8 

acres. The farm has to feed six family members. For 12 months in a year, farm harvest 

feeds the family, as the family does not works outside farm. 

CROPS On his 8 acres he grows Bitter gourd crop (1 acre), Cucumber crop (0.5 acre), 

Ridge gourd crop (0.7 acre) and Paddy (6.0 acre) 

CULTIVATION HISTORY His family has been cultivating Paddy (100 years), Bitter gourd 

(30 years), Cucumber (10 years) and Ridge gourd (7 years). 

CHOICE OF BITTER GOURD VARIETIES He goes for the cultivation of local variety of 

bitter gourd, which yields low but good market price and marketing network. 


Cultivation of hybrid bitter gourd creates marketing problem, as demand in the nearby 

local market is less due to bigger in size. Middleman do not prefer hybrid for 

transportation to other states. 

MAJOR PEST PROBLEMS IN BITTER GOURD Semi-looper, locally known as Ghoda Poko (larva 

moves like a horse=Ghoda), is the main problem in bitter gourd crop, which destroys 

the entire plants, as a result plants die. Other insects like fruit fly & epilachna 

beetle cause less damage to bitter gourd crop. Semilooper became problem since last 6 

to 7 years and cannot be controlled by spraying of any pesticides. Among diseases, 

leaf blight (burning of leaves) is main problem. This year fruiting period in case of 

bitter gourd crop was very short i.e. only from mid December to mid February due to 

crop damage by leaf blight. This year in case of bitter gourd crop, semi-looper 

(ghoda poko) caused serious damage as a result, the plant became severely defoliated 

& fruiting period shortened for which yield per acre became very reduced compared to 

the previous year. 

MAJOR PEST PROBLEMS IN CUCUMBER In cucumber crop, leaf blight, yellow mosaic virus 

diseases are the main problem. In cucumber Epilachna beetle and leaf blight cause 

damage. 

MAJOR PEST PROBLEMS IN RIDGE GOURD In ridge gourd crop, epilachna beetle, which he 

calls Haldia Poko (turmeric=Haldia=yellow), is the main problem. Epilachna Beetle 

causes damage to bitter gourd and ridge gourd since last 5 to 6 years & by now it is 

a main problem for ridge gourd crop. Epilachna beetle and mites are the main problems 

in Ridge gourd. Blight also causes loss in this crop (ridge gourd). 

DISEASE Leaf blight disease causes a main problem for bitter gourd, cucumber & ridge 

gourd crop as a result plants wither & fruiting does not occur. Blight disease became 

a problem since last 10 years. 

FRUIT FLY PROBLEMS IN BITTER GOURD, RIDGE GOURD & CUCUMBER He thinks Bitter gourd, 

Cucumber & Ridge gourd are the host crop of fruit fly. He cultivates fruit fly host 

crops because they fetch more profit compared to other crops per unit area. 

Intercultural operations are in these crops are also easy. The strong reason is good 

marketing facility. Farmer was not aware about fruit fly. He comes to know about the 

fly only after interaction with team. When explained he immediately identifies the 

nature of damage of fly. He said that this pest (fly) causes damage to the crop to 

very less extent (he assumes). Farmer is not aware about the damage of fruit fly in 

ridge gourd. After knowing the damage by the fruit fly he explains that a foul smell 

comes out of fruit as a result, fruits are not used for consumption purpose. Farmer 

was not aware about the fruit fly (but damage ) & for first time he has seen this 

pest in his bitter gourd crop. It differs from other pest in the sense that its 

larvae seen white in colour and inside the fruit the flesh is rotten with a foul 

smell. Fruit fly are not so bad in the sense that its extent of damage to the bitter 

gourd crop is very less i.e. 5 to 6% only. Fruit Flies cause 2 to 3, 5 and 4 to 5 % 

damage to Bitter gourd, Ridge gourd and Cucumber, respectively. 

ONSET OF FRUIT FLY ATTACK In case of bitter gourd crop, fruit fly attack develops 

during the last part of the cropping season i.e. in the month of March. It happens in 

the month of March because of rise in temperature. By his average knowledge, fruit 

fly infestation is not same in every year. 

PESTICIDE USE He sprays pesticides like Dimethoate ("Roger") & Endosulfan at weekly 

interval in bitter gourd crop for the last 5 years. He came to know about pesticide 

application after coming in the contact pesticide with shop keeper 5 years back. 

Spraying of pesticides like endosulfan, monocrotophos does not has much impact for 

controlling the semi-looper pest. Though leaf blight was a problem for this year in 

case of bitter gourd crop, spraying of Mancozeb controlled the disease. This pest 

(fruit fly) was not controlled by spraying of any pesticides at all (sprayed for 


other pests). 

RICE AND ITS PESTS In rice, stem borer, brown plant hopper, gall midge are the main 

insects causing damage to the crop in greater extent. Diseases like bacterial leaf 

blight, sheath blight and gundhi bug were also reported. This is an important crop in 

the sense that it provides food round the year. Being high rain fall area rice is the 

most suited crop in the rainy season. 

#B003 DATE:04/03 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village Pitapalli. He has farm area of about 10 acres 

land and farm has to fed 8 family members for about twelve months in the year as the 

farm family is not doing any another job outside farm. 

PRODUCTION HISTORY He grows Paddy, Bitter gourd, Cucumber, & Ridge gourd. Most 

Important Crop for the family is Bitter gourd. In his family, paddy is grown since 

more than 100 years, bitter gourd 30 years cucumber, 10 years and ridge gourd since 

10-12 years. 

BITTER GOURD CULTIVATION HISTORY Farmer started Bitter gourd cultivation for first 

time in his villages. He brought cultivation aspects & seeds from nearby village 

Kumarbasta. The farmer thought first time whether the crop will success or not & will 

it be profitable or not. It performed very well, fruiting was very good with very 

less pest attack. Bitter gourd cultivation became popular because the crop was more 

profitable than other crops & all the farmers of their village started bitter gourd 

cultivation Relative to the other crops grown round here, its great advantages are 

the crop is more profitable because of good marketing facility. Disadvantages are 

staking problem, Spraying problem, Irrigation problem, Semilooper pest problem. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS Bitter gourd is attacked by Semilooper, Epilachna beetle, and 

fruit fly but most serious is Semi looper known as Ghoda poko. Semi looper became 

problem in bitter gourd crop since last 5 to 6 years. This pest affects when fruit is 

bigger in size i.e. at the harvest stage. It cuts the edges of leaf lamina and bores 

into fruits in case of bitter gourd crop. This pest caused highest damage in this 

year in bitter gourd crop as a result fruiting was very less. 

RIDGE GOURD PESTS In Ridge gourd Epilachna Beetle is a problem. Epilachna Beetle is a 

problem in case of ridge gourd crop since last 4 to 5 years. Beetles feed voraciously 

on leaf & flowers and make irregular patches. Its attack results low fruiting in the 

plant. 

CUCUMBER PESTS In cucumber Semilooper damages. 

FRUIT FLY AS A PEST Fruit Flies cause damage to Bitter gourd - 2-3 %, Ridge gourd-4 

to 5 % and Cucumber-5%. Fruit fly is causing damage since 4 to 5 years. Farmer comes 

to know the first time from us about the nature of damage caused by fruit fly, its 

infestation & its identification. 

SERIOUSNESS OF FRUIT FLY ATTACK Relative to the other pests, around here, fruit fly 

can be particularly bad in the sense that infestation cannot be identified easily. It 

is bad because fruit fly infested fruits become unfit for consumption. It differs 

from other pests from their damage symptom because in better gourd crop its 

infestation can not be noticed from fruit surface, fruits start rotting & fall off 

from plants . 

FRUIT FLY ATTACK DEVELOPMENT When an attack develops and why it happens farmer does 

not know. Its development is noticed during the month of March i.e. last month of 

harvesting. Prevalence of fruit flies from year to year is not same in every year (he 

correlates the extent of infestation with climatic condition). Pest attack is seen 

more when cloudy weather & rainfall is more during the fruiting period. 


FRUIT FLY INSECTICIDAL CONTROLS For controlling fruit-flies the farmer did not use 

any separate measure but he sprays pesticides like endosulfan at weekly interval for 

other insect pests. Spraying of Endosulfan has been in use since last two years & 

this was started for the first time by advice from a pesticide shop keeper of Khurda 

town. When endosulfan used for controlling the pest infestation the farmer thought 

whether fruit infestation would be checked or not. To his doubt, the infestation was 

not controlled completely . Now he sprays endosulfan blindly for controlling the 

pests in the crop. 

OTHER FRUIT FLY CONTROLS Farmer did not have any idea about other possible fly 

control methods & its advantages & disadvantages. 

#B004 DATE:04/03 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village Kumarbasta. 45 years old. There are total 6 of 

family members, farm of 7 acres. The farm provides livelihood to family member around 

the year, as family do not do any job outside farm. 

CROPS Total farm area is about 7 acres, out of which 5 acres is used for paddy crops 

and rest 2 acres for vegetable crop. He grows Paddy, Bitter gourd Ridge gourd, and 

Cucumber. 

RICE He grows rice basically for family consumption, however surplus he sells to 

locals. His family has been growing paddy crop since more than 100 years. Being 

staple crop rice growing has been a tradition in his family and also in the village. 

The main advantage of growing rice is that this crop can be grown without using 

irrigation water rather monsoon's natural rain. He grows rice because it is a staple 

food for the family and no other crop can be grown in the fields because of high rain 

fall and water stagnation. Its main disadvantage is that the procurement of paddy by 

Govt. is not done at all & also the market price becomes too low. 

BITTER GOURD He has been growing bitter gourd since last 50 years. His grandfather 

started for first time when many farmers started the cultivation & got more prices in 

the local market. Initially he cultivated bitter gourd crop in a small area & 

gradually the area increased with time. Great advantages of growing bitter gourd is 

that the crop is more profitable compared to other vegetable & its market is very 

good. He is not able to grow hybrid bitter gourd because fruits are bigger in size, 

marketing becomes difficult in local market. Middleman purchases hybrid bitter gourds 

at low price for transportation to distant markets. 

RIDGE GOURD Ridge gourd is grown from June to September after the harvest of the 

bitter gourd crop & he has been growing this crop since last 20 to 30 years. He 

started its cultivation by seeing the other farmers. Cultivation of ridge gourd is 

beneficial because it is marketed locally. The main advantages are that the insect 

pest attack is very less compared to other crops. Main disadvantage of ridge gourd 

cultivation is that its yield/plant is low & profit is not as high as bitter gourd 

crop. 

RICE PESTS In paddy, rice stem borer, brown plant hopper and gall midge are main 

insect pests. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS In Bitter gourd Epilachna beetle (Haldia poko), semilooper (Ghoda 

poko) and, fruit fly (Dhada poko) are the problems. 

RIDGE GOURD PESTS Ridge gourd suffers from Semi looper, Epilachna beetle, mites and 

fruit fly. 

CUCUMBER PESTS In cucumber Semi looper and fruit fly are the problem. 

EPILACHNA Epilachna Beetle became a problem since last 7 to 8 years. It causes damage 

in bitter gourd crop during flowering & bud initiation stage. Chhua (grubs) and Mai 


(mother) feed voraciously on leaf lamina & flower by making irregular patches and 

holes. 

SEMI-LOOPER Semi-looper became main problem since last 4 to 5 years. Caterpillars cut 

the edges of leaf lamina, fold the leaf & feed within the roll, sometimes the 

attacked plants totally denuded of the leaves. Larvae also bore into the fruits. 

FRUIT FLY Fruit fly is somehow a problem since last 3 to 4 years in bitter gourd. It 

becomes problem in the sense that larval feed on the pulp of fruits & infested fruits 

show brown juice oozing out of infested fruits that start rotting, get distorted fall 

off from plants prematurely. Relative to other pests, it is particularly bad in the 

sense that it can not be controlled by using of insecticides. This pest causes 3-4%, 

4-5% and 2-3%, damage to bitter gourd, ridge gourd and cucumber, respectively. The 

detailed damage caused by fruit flies were not known to the farmer however he told 

that severity was noticed in the bitter gourd crop during the month of March i.e. 

last month of harvesting period. Its extent of damage is not the same in every. 

INSECTICIDAL FRUIT FLY CONTROL For controlling fruit flies the farmer used pesticide 

(sevin) not any poison bait. Cover spraying of is done when the fruit shows some 

holes on the surface. This has been started with the consultation with local 

pesticide shopkeeper . When used for the first time, farmer thought whether this 

pesticide can control or not the symptom. It performed in the sense that it 

controlled ( probably semi looper) to some extent. 

OTHER FRUIT FLY CONTROLS Farmer is not aware of other possible means of fly control. 

#B005 DATE:04/03 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village Kumarbasta. The farm area is of about 6 acres 

for 7 family members. For about twelve months, the farm harvest feed the family. Farm 

family does not have any other job outside farm. 

CROPS He grows paddy, bitter gourd, ridge gourd, brinjal okra and cucumber. From 6 

acres 1 acre is meant for bitter gourd crop. 

BITTER GOURD HISTORY His ancestors started bitter gourd cultivation before 50 years 

along with other villagers as an income generation activity. Relative to the other 

crops grown round here, its great advantages is that this crop gives more profit 

compared to other vegetable crops & grown by most of the farmers of his villages. 

Marketing net work for this crop is very good. The main problem is bringing 

pokasungha woods which is used for pandal preparations. Marketing of hybrid better 

gourd becomes a problem in the local market. 

RIDGE GOURD HISTORY He has been growing Ridge gourd since last 30 after the harvest 

of bitter gourd crop. Seeds are sown in the month of June. 2 to 3 seeds are sown in 

one place & irrigation water is given individually to each basin with bucket or 

mathia. For the first time when his father started the cultivation of this crop he 

thought whether the crop will success or not. The crop condition was very good with 

little attack of insect pests. Relative to other crops the great advantages was that 

marketing is very good for this crop with little problems. 

RICE Paddy is attacked by Rice stem borer, Gall midge and Brown plant hopper. This is 

an important crop as it feeds the family for 12 months. 

CUCURBIT PESTS Bitter gourd is infested by Epilachna beetle and semilooper, Ridge 

gourd by Epilachna beetle, mites, and Cucumber by Semilooper 

EPILACHNA Epilachna Beetle is a problem since last 4 to 5 years. It causes mainly 

damage to bitter gourd & ridge gourd crops during its peak growth & flowering stage. 

The beetles and grubs feed voraciously on leaf lamina & flowers by making irregular 

holes and patches. Relative to the other pests round here, it is particularly bad in 


the sense that it seriously decreases the yield. 

SEMI-LOOPER Semi looper is a problems since last 6 years in bitter gourd, ridge gourd 

& cucumber crops. It causes damage during the vegetative growth & fruiting stages. 

The attacked plants are denuded of the leaves. Larvae also bore into the fruits. In 

this year, semi looper caused serious damage to the bitter gourd crops as a result 

yield was substantially reduced. Relative to the other pests round here, it is 

particularly bad because in bitter gourd crop this year because semi looper damage 

kills the entire plant. 

FRUIT FLY Fruit fly does not cause much damage (hardly 2-3%). When attack develops, 

larvae eat away the internal content of the fruits, as a result the fruit becomes 

unfit for consumption. Farmer does not know about its development & severity. It is 

not same in every year, more during the rainy and cloudy weather at the time of 

fruiting period. It differ from other pests in the sense that fruit fly infested 

fruits do not show any initial symptoms. 

INSECTICIDAL FRUIT FLY CONTROLS For controlling the fruit flies in bitter gourd crop, 

pesticide spraying is the best and farmer used the pesticides dimethoate. The farmer 

has not used the poison bait method. This pesticide has been in use since last two 

years by an advice of the local pesticide shopkeeper situated at Khurda. When used 

for first time of the pesticide, farmer thought that whether it will control (perhaps 

all the pests). 

OTHER FRUIT FLY CONTROLS About other methods of fly control, farmer does not have 

idea, so he does not know about its advantages and disadvantages. 

#B006 DATE:04/03 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village Pitapalli. He has 7 family members and the 

farm provides livelihood to family around the year. Family does not have off farm 

activity during the year. 

CROPS He grows rice, bitter gourd, cucumber but most important crop is bitter gourd. 

He has got an area of 8 acres. Out of 8 acres he grows bitter gourd on 1 acre. 

BITTER GOURD HISTORY He started bitter gourd cultivation 20 years back. He sows 4-5 

seed of bitter gourd of local variety and makes pandal by using local wood known as 

Poksuma. He grows bitter gourd because it is more remunerative among the crops grown 

here with a good marketing facility. For the first time, he was not sure for the 

success of crop, cost involved and profitability. The crop performed well, fruiting 

was good cost of cultivation was sustainable and gave good profit. Bitter gourd is 

more preferred for cultivation, as it has got good market and better profit in 

comparison to other crops. The disadvantage is that it needs hard work to prepare the 

pandal, intercultural operation and irrigation. He cannot grow high yielding bitter 

gourd variety as it has poor marketing choice. September is the ideal month of bitter 

gourd sowing. 

RICE PESTS His rice is attacked by stem borer, gall midge, sheath blight and gundhi 

bug. 

CUCURBIT PESTS Bitter gourd and cucumber are suffered by Ghoda poko (semilooper), 

fruit fly, leaf blight and epilachna beetle. The most dreadful pest in bitter gourd 

crop is Ghoda Poko (semilooper). This has become a major problem since 6 years. 

Initially it feed on tender leaves because of that most of the foliage get lost. 

Later on it feeds on foliage as well as on the fruits. On fruits it make scratches 

and small holes that renders fruits unfit for marketing. 

FRUIT FLY Fruit fly is not a major problem. Though its infestation was noticed 3 

years back. The damage is caused in the tail part of the crop ie in the month of 

March. The outer infestation is normally not seen by the farmer later the fruit get 


yellow and drop. On opening of the dropped fruits a foul smell comes out and Dhada 

Poko (white larvae ) are seen. It is bad because its damage cannot be seen. The pest 

can not be controlled by spraying of insecticides. Infested fruits become useless. 

Level of damage is not same every year. Fruit fly cause 3-4 % damage to bitter 

gourd,4-5% in ridge gourd and 6% in cucumber. Farmer does not know why and how the 

damage of fly develops. He knows that the larvae remain inside but from where they 

come and where they go he is unaware. He knows the damaged fruits become yellow and 

stop developing, fall off and give a foul smell. He says the infestation level is 

same almost every year. 

INSECTICIDES Farmer does not apply any specific measure of fruit fly control. 

Normally he sprays insecticides for the control of other pests but he has observed 

that fruit fly damage is not reduced by the application of insecticides. He has been 

using pesticides like endosulfan at weekly intervals. He consulted regarding 

pesticide application from pesticide dealer in the nearby area. 

#B007 DATE:04/03 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Mahendra Badajena, Village Kumarbasta. He and his 

family is working at bitter gourd field. He is little bit reluctant to talk but his 

wife insists and he starts responding. He has a farm area of about 12 acres; this 

feeds family around the year and members do not have any off farm employment in the 

year. 

CROPS He has bitter gourd on 2 of his 12 acres. He has been growing rice, bitter 

gourd, ridge gourd pumpkin, cucumber and brinjal. The most important crop is bitter 

gourd for his family for getting cash money. For feeding the family, rice is the 

important crop. 

BITTER GOURD HISTORY He started bitter gourd cultivation 25 years back with a doubt 

whether the crop will perform well. It did well with good production and least 

infestation of insect pests. He grows bitter gourd because it fetches good money and 

has well established marketing infrastructure. 

BITTER GOURD PEST PROBLEMS The main problem associated with this crop is that 

semilooper heavily infests it. The spraying of insecticides is tedious in side the 

erected pandal structure. Frequent sprays are needed to control the pest. 

RIDGE GOURD HISTORY He is growing ridge gourd also after bitter gourd crop in the 

summer. This crop provides money and less infested by insect pests, however, 

epilachna beetle and leaf blight cause damage. When he went for ridge gourd he 

thought whether the crop will perform or not but it did well. 

RICE & ITS PESTS In rice crop stem borer, gundhi bug are the major problem. 

CUCURBIT PESTS In bitter gourd and ridge gourd semilooper causes severe damage 

FRUIT FLIES Fruit fly causes very less damage (2-3% of fruits). Damage occurs in the 

month of March. The damage of the pest is not seen from outside and therefore it is 

bad. It will cause great damage if appears in large numbers. He feels lucky that the 

fruit fly is not a major pest. He does not know how its damage starts but he knows 

that Dhada Poko (white larva), whom we call fruit fly, are found inside the fruit. It 

differs from other pests as its damage is not seen from out side and extent of damage 

remains same even after spraying of insecticides. He has never used any control 

measure specifically for fruit fly, however he has been using endosulfan and sevin 

for the control of other insect pests. 

#B008 DATE: 22/11/2003 TEAM: HSS/ASK. Village Banamalipur. The farmer has total an 

area of about 7.0 acres of land. The farm has to feed 7 family members. The farm 

harvest feeds the family for 12 months in the year and farmer do not do any other job 

outside farming. 


CROPS Paddy, Brinjal, Bitter gourd, Groundnut, Wheat etc. Most important crop is 

Paddy & Brinjal. Paddy is most important crop because this crop was only grown during 

kharif season as other crops can not be grown due to excess rainfall during kharif 

season. Brinjal, Bitter gourd & cluster bean crops are grown during kharif season in 

the upland areas in small areas compared to paddy crops. Brinjal & bitter gourd crops 

were grown in upland areas during kharif season, because the crops are harvested 

during the month of October to December & at that time the market price is very high 

. During Rabi season, Groundnut & wheat crops are raised with artificial method of 

irrigation after harvest of the paddy crops. 

HISTORY OF BRINJAL. Farmer has been growing the crop since last 20 years. 

HISTORY OF BITTER GOURD . The farmer has been growing the bitter gourd crop since 

last 5 years. Farmer started growing it for higher income compared to other 

vegetables. Bitter gourd cultivation was not done in large area at that time for 

which the price was very high. Farmer purchased the bitter gourd seeds from the local 

market Tangi & started the cultivation with advice from the local Horticulture Dept. 

people. During the first time cultivation, farmer was not confident for germination, 

fruit setting and insect pest attack. Crop performed well but not too well because of 

lower fruit setting but got profit as compared to the investment made in cultivation. 

Relative to the other crops grown round here, its great advantages is that, the 

profit is more compared to other crops per unit area and its good marketability. 

About its disadvantages, is preparing pandals. 

HISTORY OF GROUNDNUT. The crop is grown since last 10 years in Rabi season after 

harvest of the paddy crop at 2 to 3 years interval. Taking the seeds from Govt. 

Agriculture Department farmer started this crop. 

HISTORY OF WHEAT. The crop is grown since last 15 years after harvest of the paddy 

crop during Rabi season. Taking the seeds from Govt. Agriculture Department farmer 

started this crop. 

PESTS OF CROPS Paddy Brown plant hopper, stem borer Brinjal Fruit & shoot borer 

Bitter gourd Semi looper, fruit fly 

FRUIT FLY DAMAGE Fruit fly causes problem in the bitter gourd crop & this pest was 

noticed last two to three years back. This pest was noticed during the fruit maturity 

stage. One spot was noticed on the outer surface of the bitter gourd & sometimes a 

hole was also noticed whenever fruits were broken, small white coloured insects 

(larvae) were seen inside the damaged fruits. Spraying of any pesticides did not 

control this pest. This pest was not noticed during the first time cultivation & was 

seen last from last two years. Relative to the other pests round there, this pest 

makes particularly bad because by this attack entire fruits were damaged during the 

last part of the crop & not controlled by spraying of pesticides. 

FRUIT FLIES They cause loss to the bitter gourd to the tune of 2.5% This pest is very 

bad because of its natures of damage ie, insect was found inside the fruits and some 

times 5 to 8 nos. of insects (larvae) was observed & these fruits were not marketed 

at all by the customers. Farmer told that its development was started after the fruit 

maturity stage & was peak during the last part of the crop. This pest was observed 

since last two years & before that the pest problem was not so serious. This pest 

differs from other pests in the sense that it does not cause much damage to the 

fruits & this pest causes damage inside the fruits. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Farmer knows pesticide spraying against fruit flies & mostly he 

sprayed the pesticide like endosulfan & Rogor. Spraying of chemical pesticide ie, 

endosulfan & Rogor. The farmer have been using this method since last two years by an 

advice from the local Horticulture Dept. Actually farmer does not sprayed this 

pesticides specially for fruit fly but as a broad spectrum method for all the pests 


including semilooper because fruit fly does not cause much damage to the crop. For 

the first time used this pesticide, farmer thought about its extent of control. In 

farmer's view, it performed not so well but controlled to some extent. Farmer does 

not know much about the other possible fly control methods. 

#B009 DATE: 6/11/2003 TEAM: HSS/ASK. Village Sindhiba. 40 years old. The total farm 

area is about of 2.5 acres. The farm feeds for eight family members. The farm harvest 

fed the family for about six months and besides thus the farmer was doing the labour 

works in his villages in Govt. E.A.A. & other works. 

CROPS Orange, Lemon, Turmeric, Pineapple, Paddy. Of his 2.5 acres area orange, 

pineapple & turmeric crops were cultivated in 2 acre area & paddy, ragi crops are 

grown in rest half acre area. Pineapple & turmeric crops are intercropped with orange 

trees & paddy & ragi were grows in lowland & upland respectively farmer also 

practised the shifting cultivation for millet & Kandoola pulse. Most important crop: 

Orange, Pineapple, Turmeric. Farmer was growing mostly orange, pineapple & turmeric 

because of land topography & hilly areas. The crops were raised without use of any 

fertilizer pesticides & artificial irrigation & marketing of the following above 

mentioned crops were very easy and farmer gets good return from the crop. Pineapple & 

turmeric crops are inter cropped with the orange crops. 

CROP: ORANGE Farmer has been growing since last 15 years. Farmer had started to grow 

this crop by taking the seedlings of orange from the Horticulture dept. of Orissa 

Government. He got the seedlings from the Govt. scheme (under Integrated tribal 

development agency) by an advice of the district Horticulture Department people. 

Farmer thought that whether this crop sustained or not in this hilly areas with high 

altitude & rocky soil. Also simultaneously he thought about the success of the crop 

in future 7 particularly about the fruit fly matter and sweetness taste. This crop 

performed very well and fruiting started after five years of planting and now on an 

average 100 fruits were obtained from each plant. 

ORANGE ADVANTAGES Relative to the other crops grown round there, its great advantages 

is that, this crops requires much less care & farmer does not used any type of 

fertilizer & pesticides to the crops. By natural means and monsoon rains the fruiting 

was happened in the trees. Second advantage is that the marketability of the fruits 

were very easy because the traders from the nearby areas like Berhampur, Cuttack & 

Bhubaneswar were came to their villages and products were purchased from their farm 

itself with a price of Rs.2/ per orange. Also the OMFED, Govt. of Orissa also 

purchased from their farm itself for squash purposes. 

ORANGE DISADVANTAGES The main problems is now occurring as prematurely fruit drop off 

from the plants & immediately rotten the fruits on the soil surface itself. Sometimes 

matured & ripened fruits were drop off from the plants & rotten itself ground level. 

This problem was noticed since last two years & during this current year, this 

problem was noticed in very acute manner ie, fruits were even dropped from the trees 

up to 50 to 75 %. 

ORANGE PESTS I) Fruit sucking moth. II) Bark eating caterpillar. Most serious pest is 

fruit sucking moth. 

FRUIT SUCKING MOTH This pest is becoming a problem to the orange crop since last year 

but it causes much damage to the fruits during this current year. During fruiting 

stage, the fruits were dropped off from the plants itself prematurely & also matured 

fruits & rotten the fruits itself. The farmer told us that he observed one radish 

brown colour flies were sits on the outer surface of the fruits & that particular 

fruits were failed down after some days & afterward rotten starts. He also noticed 

one dark coloured patches on the fruits outer surface. Relative to the other pests 

round there, it was particularly bad because of its nature of damage i.e. fruits were 

fall off from the plants & rotten before maturity stage for which farmer faces huge 


loss. One myth was prevalent among the farmer in that village that this type of 

damage was mainly due to some type of flies & may be the fruit fly 

FRUIT FLY Farmer totally not aware about the fruit fly & after discussion with us, he 

told that yes, this pest was found inside the mango & guava during ripening stage but 

he never seen this pest. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Farmer also not know about any control methods used against fruit 

flies and he knows for the first time from us about the damage caused by fruit flies 

in the fruits & nature of damage to the different fruit crops. 

#B010 06/10/2003 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village: Sindhiba. The total farm area is of around 2 

acre land. The farm had to fed for the total three nos. of family members. The farm 

harvest was fed the family for only eight months & for rest six month he was doing 

labour works at outside areas. 

CROPS Orange, Lemon, Turmeric, Pineapple, Paddy, Ragu, and Maize. Most important 

crop: (I) Pineapple (ii) Turmeric (iii) Orange. Of the 2 acres he mainly grows 

orange, lemon, pineapple & turmeric in 1.5 acres & paddy, ragi & maize in another 0.5 

acres. 

CROP: ORANGE Orange (Around 150 plants) farmer was growing the crops, orange since 

last 12 years. Farmer was growing the crops for first time by taking g the seedlings 

from the horticulture, deptt. of Orissa government farmer was grown the crops by the 

advice from the staffs of horticulture department, Orissa govt. He started to grown 

the crops for more income from his hilly lands where the other crops could not be 

successfully grown due to highly and rocky soils. Farmers was doing the practice of 

shifting cultivation in his village also. He thought that whether the seedlings of 

orange were grown properly or not in his areas because of extreme cold and situated 

in High altitude area of hilly areas and of without assured irrigation during summer 

months. The fruiting was happened after 6 years from planting and good fruit setting 

was noticed from that time to at present. At present around 150 to 200 fruits were 

native per plant. 

ORANGE ADVANTAGES Relative to the other crops grown round here its great advantage 

was that; more profit was got the farmers without doing any expenditure like 

fertilizer, pesticide and irrigation to the crops. Farmer sold the fruit. @ Rs.2.00 

per fruits to the traders came from Berhampur areas and got around Rs.300.00 to 

Rs.400.00 per tree per annum. The other advantage is that besides the traders farmer 

also sold his fruits to the omfed dept. Govt of Orissa who took the fruits from the 

farmers from his village for preparation of squash. So marketing was very easy to the 

farmer because at that time oranges were not available in the Orissa. 

ORANGE DISADVANTAGES The disadvantages/problems was appeared from last year onwards 

and became more acute in this year. The problem was that fruits were dropped off from 

the plants before maturity & rotten on the ground level very quickly. Last year the 

problem was about less to some extent but in this year about 50 to 60% of fruits were 

dropped off prematurely causing heavy loss to the farmer for this loss, his income 

was much reduced to around half before last years from orange crop. 

ORANGE PESTS Farmer was told that only fruit drop prematurely from the plant was only 

the problem & not any pest attacked to the other crops like lemon, pineapple, 

turmeric, paddy, ragi & maize. 

PEST: FRUIT SUCKING MOTH. in orange crop: Farmer was told us that one flies of red 

colour were sits on the upper surface of the fruits & after that fruits were drop off 

prematurely & a hole was noticed on the fruits. Farmer thought that this flies was 

perhaps cause this types of damage and one myth was happened in his village was that 

the red colour flies were sits on the upper surface of fruits & responsible for fall 


off prematurely from plants. Thus problem was noticed since last one year but last 

year that was not so much like on this year. In this current season, about 50 to 60 % 

of fruits were dropped off prematurely from the plants & rotten immediately at ground 

level after dropped off from the plant . This type of damage was found during the 

fruiting stage i.e. from mid September to November end & max. was noticed during the 

October month. Farmer told us that except thus pest, other pests were not attacked to 

this crop. Farmer also told that this type of problem was not noticed in Najeera & 

Mosambi (one variety of sour orange). This pests was particularly very bad because, 

during harvesting stage, fruits were dropped off from the plants as a result a great 

loss was suffered by him. 

PEST: FRUIT FLY. Fruit flies not causes damages to the fruits on the plant itself & 

some fruitfly larvae was noticed on the fallen fruits under the trees at ground 

level. It seems that adult female fruit flies lays eggs after fruits drop off from 

the plants. Trap catching was also not noticed in that villages. Farmer does not any 

ideas regarding the fruit fly & its damages to the crops. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROLS. Farmer does not known about any control measures to be used 

against fruit flies. 

#B011 3/9/2003 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village: Champajhar. The total farm area is of 5.0 acres 

land. The farm had to fed for about seven nos. of family members. The farm harvest 

fed the family for total of twelve months in the year and farmer's wife doing 

official job in the state Govt. The farmer has not doing any job outside farming for 

some months. 

CROPS Paddy, Brinjal, Mango (6 trees of Totapuri variety). Farmers grown all these 

three crops. Of the 5 acres all the areas were under paddy crop during kharif season 

& around 0.20 acre land is under vegetable cultivation during rabi season 

CROP: PADDY Farmer's grown the paddy crop since last 25 years & before that his 

father & grandfather started the growing of paddy crop in smaller area. relative to 

the other crops grown round there, the great advantage for paddy cultivation was that 

this is the only crop that is successfully grown during kharif season because of 

monsoon rains & all the farmer's of the village were raised the paddy crop during 

kharif season & some farmers were grown paddy during rabi season with the help of a 

dug well in lowland areas. 

CROP: BRINJAL The crop has been grown by farmer since last 15 years during rabi 

season with the help of dug well. This crop was started for the first time before 15 

years because of greater income from small area during rabi season. In that year the 

crop was performed well but yield was not up to the mark. Relative to other crops 

grown round here, its great advantages that its marketing was very easy & much profit 

making also. 

CROPS & PESTS On Paddy: Gall midge, Rice case worm, Gundhi bug. On Brinjal: Fruit & 

shoot borer, stem borer, wilting. On Mango: Fruit fly, hopper. 

PEST: FRUIT FLY It has been a problem in mango since last 3 to 4 years. This pest 

problem was first noticed during last four years back for the first time when the 

matured fruits were remained as such in the mango tree for natural ripening. It 

becomes a problem because the total fruits was damaged and cannot used as it for 

consumption purpose. Relative to the other pests round here, it is particularly bad 

because it damages the entire fruits during ripening stage and was not controlled by 

spraying of pesticides. The loss caused by the fruit flies to the mango crop is to be 

around 30-40%. The attack was first noticed on the fruit by a small scratch mark ( a 

tiny hole) & after ripening when the fruits were cut into pieces was noticed. It is 

as bad as it is because as a good fruit finally becomes totally when the fruit is in 

matured condition & going to be ripening . It is not same in every year in farmer's 


mango tree because he told that in this current year, the fruit fly problem was of 

too high compared to last year. It differ from other pests in the way that its larvae 

was damaged the fruits during ripening stage. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Farmer's did not know any things that can be used against fruit 

flies. 

#B012 13/5/3 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village: pitapalli; Age 30 years. The total farm area is 

of about 6 Acres of land. The farm had to fed for the total of 7 numbers of family 

members and farm harvest fed the family for all twelve months in the year and he does 

not done any job out side farming for some months. His education level is 'Under 

matric'. Annual income from all sources= Rs.4000.00. 

CROPS Paddy, bitter gourd, snake gourd. Farmer cultivated bitter gourd in 1-acre 

area. 

CROP: PADDY The crop has been growing since last 100 years or more. Farmer's grand 

father has started to grow this crops and continuously it was grown by his ancestors 

because rice is used as a staple food, its great advantage was that paddy crops was 

easily during Kharif season from the water. The main problem is for growing paddy 

crop is that the profit return from the crop was very less. 

CROP: BITTER GOURD The crop has been grown since last years, farmer had started to 

grow the crops by noticing the neighbour farmers getting the profits from crop, 

during the first time crop raising farmer was thought that whether profit would 

returned from the crop or rot. In that year, it was not performed well because of 

poor growth in the crop. Relative ton the other crops its great advantages is that 

the profit was much more compared to other crops grown at that time. 

CROP: SNAKE GOURD The crop has been growing since last 4 years and this crop was 

grown after the harvest of the bitter gourd crop during rainy season. Its advantage 

is that this crop was best suited after harvesting bitter gourd crop. 

CROPS & PESTS Paddy: Stem borer, Rice case worm. Bitter gourd: Semilooper, Epilachna 

beetle, fruit fly. Snake gourd: Semilooper. 

PEST: STEM BORER It has been a problem since last 20 years or more, farmer noticed 

that when there is more of rains during kharif season, Stem borer attach is more. 

PEST: RICE CASE WORM It has been also a problem since last 15 years. 

PEST SEMILOOPER It has been a problem in bitter gourd crops since last5 years /. It 

became a problem to bitter gourd crop by eating all the leaves and stems resulting 

total skeletonized the plants as a result death of the plant occur. 

PEST: EPILACHNA BEETLE It has been a problem in bitter gourd crops since last 6 

years. The pest damages the leaves by saucing & ultimately plant dies. 

FRUIT FLY It has been a problem in bitter gourd crops since last 4 years. The pest 

damages the fruits during the harvesting stage. Relative to the other pests round 

here, it is particularly bad because the pests occurred every year and not controlled 

by spraying of pesticides. 

PESTICIDES Farmer used the following insecticides for controlling different pests in 

the bitter gourd crops as follows: All are controlled with Endosulfan at the same 

dose, of 2ml/ltr of water. Application intervals do vary:- Semi looper every 07 days; 

Epilachna every 15 days; Fruit fly every 07 days. Farmer used the pesticide based on 

pest observance and he does not use any adhesive during spraying. 


PEST: FRUIT FLIES Losses: Bitter gourd 5 to 10 %; Ridge gourd 5 to 6 %; Snake gourd 2 

to 3 %. Farmer told that in bitter gourd crop, fruit fly damage was noticed during 

the last part of the harvesting season was more i.e. during the month of March and 

April. This is most severe during the mid March to April 1st week. The attack is same 

in every year. It differs from other pests by its nature of damage i.e. larvae bore 

into the fruits and; the pests was not controlled by spraying of pesticides. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROLS Farmer knows only the spraying of chemical pesticides for 

controlling the fruit fly and he never used any type of poison bait and trap method 

of controlling the fruit fly. Spraying of chemical pesticide namely (Endosulfan + @ 

2ml/litre of water at 7 days interval farmer had used this method since last 3 years. 

He started to use it by an advice from one pesticide shopkeeper situated at Khurda 

town. By using this method the pest population was controlled to some extent but not 

completely. Farmer did not aware about any type of other methods of fly control for 

which be used only this method for controlling the pest. Overall this method is very 

good. For controlling fruit fly, farmer's opinion about the best insecticide is 

Rogor/Hildon. He does not use any adhesive during spraying and he sprayed all the 

three inner parts in bitter gourd crop. There is a gap of 7 days between crop 

harvesting and spraying farmer regulated the spraying based on pest observance. 

#B013 13/5/3 TEAM:HSS/ASK. Village: Pitapalli. Education: 7th passed. The total farm 

area is of about 5.0 acres of land. The farm had to fed for the total of 8 nos. of 

family members. The farm harvest fed the family for 8 months and farmer had another 

job outside farming for some months. Annual income from all sources: Rs. 50,000.00. 

CROPS Farmer has been grown the crops like paddy, bitter gourd, snake gourd, Ridge 

gourd etc. Most important crop is Bitter gourd - on 0.5-1.0 of the 5 acres. 

CROP: PADDY The crop has been growing since last 100 years or more by his father & 

grand father. Relative to the other crops grown round here, its great advantages is 

that it is consumed by his family members throughout the year & the disadvantage is 

far its profit returned from unit area compared to other crops. 

CROP: BITTER GOURD The crop has been growing since last 7-8 years. He started to grow 

the crop by observing the profit getting by other neighbouring farmers from bitter 

gourd cultivation. During the first time of crop grown farmer thought about whether 

profit was returned from the bitter gourd cultivation or not and at that time the 

crop was performed well with some profit. Relative to the other crops grown round 

here, its great advantage that the crop was growing by most of the farmers during 

same time for which damage by animals & theft problems does not happened & 

disadvantage in its marketing for hybrid bitter groud cultivation because of bigger 

in size. 

CROP: BITTER GOURD The crop has been growing since last 4 to 5 years & he started to 

grow the crop by noticing their neighbour farmers of his village. 

CROP: RIDGE GOURD The crop has been growing since last 6 years & he started to grow 

the crop during rainy season and this is done after the harvest of bitter gourd crop 

cultivation. 

CROPS & PESTS Paddy: B.P.H., Gundhi bug; Bitter gourd: Semilooper, Epilachna beetle & 

fruit fly; Snake gourd: Semilooper; Ridge gourd: Epilachna beetle 

PEST: FRUIT FLY This has been caused problem since last 5 years it damages only 

fruits during the peak harvesting stage & maximum was noticed during the last part of 

the harvesting i.e. during the month of march & April. It damages the entire fruits 

by making a hole & rotten the fruits and drops from the plants. Fruit fly damaged 

fruits were not marketed properly and even not controlled by spraying of any 

pesticide. This pest was noticed perhaps every year & controlled to some extent by 


pesticide spraying. Relative to the other pests round here , it is particularly bad 

because by this attack total fruits are damaged & not controlled by pesticide 

spraying. About its development and severity, farmer only told that the fruits 

damaged by fruit fly were seen more during end of the fruiting season. I.e., in the 

month of March 7 April. The damaged caused by fruit fly were same in every year. 

Fruit fly pest differs from other pests in the sense that this pest was not 

responsive to spraying of pesticides. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL The farmer was knew only about spraying of chemical pesticides for 

controlling the pests and he never used any type of poison bait and pheromone traps. 

Spraying of chemical pesticide against fruit fly were used since last 3 to 4 years. 

spraying of chemical pesticide was done from the 1st harvesting onwards at weekly 

interval. This method was adopted for first time by an advice of neighbour farmer. At 

that time of 1st spraying farmer was thought that whether it was controlled or not. 

Farmer told that by spraying of pesticides for first time was controlled the fruit 

fly to some extent. Farmer does not knows about the other possible fly control 

methods. So he does not knows its advantage and disadvantages. Over all farmer was 

rated it middling good. 

#B014 9/5/3 TEAM: HSS/ASK. Village: Pitapalli. Age: 46. The total land holding is 

about 5.0 acres area and for total 7 number of family members farm had to fed. The 

farm harvest fed the family for total 12 months in the year and he does not doing any 

job outside farming for some months. Education: 5th Class passed. Annual income from 

all sources: Rs.20,000.00. 

CROPS The farmer has been grown the crop like paddy, bitter gourd, ridge & snake 

gourd. Most important crop: Paddy, Bitter gourd. Bitter gourd area: 1acre of about 5. 

CROP: PADDY The crop has been grown since last 80 years back or more by his father & 

grand father. Relative to the other crops grown round there, its great advantage is 

that rice is used by their family members as staple food & paddy crop was grown by 

all the farmer's in his village during kharif season and disadvantage is that the 

profit from crop is becoming less after deducting total expenditure. 

CROP: BITTER GOURD The crop has been grown since last 20 years back & he started to 

grow the crop by seeing bitter gourd cultivation from Kumarbasta village after 

discussed with the farmers of Kumarbasta villages. He thought during the first time 

grew was that whether the performances of crop was good or not but at that time the 

performance was good up to his expect ion. Relative to the other crops grown round 

here, its great advantages is that this crop was best suited to him because of their 

crop rotation done by the villagers in up land areas & profit also higher compared to 

other vegetables grown at that time & one disadvantage is that marketing is becoming 

a problem for hybrid bitter gourd because of its bigger size. 

CROP: SNAKE GOURD The crop has been grown since last 10 years this has been started 

because the crop was best suited for crop rotation that to be followed by other 

farmers of his village i.e., bitter gourd Ridge gourd/ cucumber/ snake gourd type of 

cropping pattern. For the first time also he thought same thing as bitter gourd 

cultivation. Its great advantage is that this cultivation was done during rainy 

season the price for snake gourd is also higher compared to other vegetables & 

disadvantage is its well marketing. 

CROPS & PESTS Paddy: Stem borer, B.P.H. Bitter gourd: Semilooper, epilachna bettle, 

fruit fly. Snake gourd: [?] 

PESTS & PESTICIDE The farmer was using the following pesticides against the pests in 

bitter gourd crops as follows: Against semilooper, 2gm. Sevin + 2ml. Rogor per ltr of 

water at 10-day intervals; against epilachna beetle, endosulfan at 2ml/ltr of water 

every 7 to 10 days; against fruit fly, rogor at 2ml/ltr every 7 days. 


PEST: SEMILOOPER Creates problems in bitter gourd crops since last 15 years back. If 

the pesticide was not sprayed at appropriate time there is total crop loss was also 

happened. After spraying of pesticide, there was also loss of 20% of foliage 7 25% 

fruits. Relative to the other pests round here it is particularly bad because this 

pests damages both foliage & fruits. 

PEST: EPILACHNA BEETLE It creates problem to bitter gourd & Ridge gourd crops since 

last 10 to 12 years. By this attack, the foliage becomes yellow in colour and plant 

dies if attack is severe. 

PEST: FRUIT FLY It has been creates problem since last 5 to 7 years and more damage 

was noticed from last 3 years onwards. This pest creates problem during the last part 

of the harvesting season i.e., during the month of March onwards. It damages only 

fruits 7 by this damage total fruits were damaged & even not used for consumable 

purpose as a foul smell was coming out from the fruits. Relative to the other pests 

round here, it is particularly bad in the sense that this problem was cannot over 

come by spraying of any pesticide and the things about it which are not so bad in the 

sense that about only 5 to 6 % loss was noticed where as loss due to semilooper pest 

was of 25 to 30 % even though after pesticide spraying. Fruit flies damage is 

estimated as 5 to 6% in bitter gourd, aound 10% in ridge gourd. Farmer does not know 

regarding the causal organism, its etiology & made of attack. It is as bad as it is 

because this pest was not controlled totally by spraying of pesticide. Farmer could 

not able to speak about its development and severity. The fruit fly damage is same in 

every year as per farmers opinion. This pest differ from other pests in the sense 

that it damages only the fruits but other pests can able to damage both foliage & 

fruits. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Farmer knows only spraying of pesticides i.e. chemical method of 

control was used against fruit flies and he never used the pheromone trap and poison 

bait method of control. Spraying of pesticides like Rogor/sevin/ endodulfan. This 

have been used since last 5 to 6 years . This has been used during the harvesting 

season at weekly interval. Farmer was used this for the first time by an advice this 

for the first time by an advice of a pesticide shop keeper from Khurda town. During 

the first time used the pesticide farmer thought that whether the pests was 

controlled or not by spraying with pesticide. By that time the pest population was 

controlled to some extent by observing the damaged fruits. Farmer does not aware 

about the other methods of fly controls except chemical controls. Overall, farmer 

rated it as very good. 

PESTICIDE ON GOURD In the bitter gourd cultivation, farmer sprayed sevin + Rogor @ 

1.5gm + 1.5ml at 15 days interval for controlling the semilooper pest. Farmer sprayed 

all the three inner parts by the knapsack sprayer & he does not used any adhesive 

maternal during spraying. Farmer stopped spraying prior to harvest before 7 days of 

harvesting & consume the bitter gourds that are sprayed. The advice regarding 

pesticide spraying was taken from pesticide dealer. 

#B015 9/5/3 TEAM: HSS/ASK. Suresh Pradhan; Village: Pitapalli; Age: 26 years; Bitter 

gourd area: 0.50 acre; Education: Primary. The total farm area is about 4.0 acre & 

the farm had to fed the total 7 numbers of family members. The farm harvest fed the 

family for all the months in a year & he has done another job outsides farming for 

some months. Annual income from all sources: 15,000.00 

CROPS Paddy, Bitter gourd, Ridge Gourd, Greens. Most important crop: Paddy & bitter 

gourd. 

CROP: PADDY Paddy crop has been grown since last one hundred years or more. His 

grandfather had started to grow the crop since last 100 years or more. Paddy crop has 

been started since last many years by his grand father and he started to grew the 

crop because rice is used as staple food and this crop was grown by all the 


villagers. 

CROP: BITTER GOURD The bitter gourd crop has been grown since last four years and 

started to grow the crop because of higher profit. He thought whether profit is to be 

happened or not in bitter gourd cultivation for the first time. It was performed well 

at that time. Its great advantage is that this is best suited for cropping pattern 

done by other farmer in his village. 

CROP: RIDGE GOURD The crop has been grown since last 10 years and his father had 

started to grew the crop because of higher profit return compared to other vegetable 

& it was best suited in crop rotation programme i.e. bitter gourd, ridge gourd, 

cucumber, snake gourd. For the first time the performance of crop is good relative to 

the other crops grown round here, its great advantages is that its marketing facility 

was very good, more profit compared to other vegetables & one disadvantage is that 

its yield was very low . 

CROPS & PESTS Paddy: Stem borer, B.P.H.. Bitter gourd: Semilooper, Epilachna beetle, 

fruit fly. Ridge gourd: Semi looper, Epilachna beetle. 

PEST: STEM BORER This has been creates problems since last 30 years or more & it 

occurred in paddy crops every year. 

PEST: B.P.H. This has been creates problems since last 25 years around & it also 

occurred in paddy crops every year. 

PEST: SEMI-LOOPER This has been create problem since last 2-3 years back and causes 

heavy damage to crops. It eats away all the foliage & bores the fruits and damages 

the fruits. This pest causes damage in both bitter gourd & Ridge gourd plants. If 

pesticide was not sprayed the entire crop was damaged. 

PEST: EPILACHNA BEETLE This pest has been creates problem since last 9 years and by 

this attack, the pests sucks the sap from the leaf surface & leaves become yellow in 

colour & plant dies if attack is severe. 

PEST: FRUIT FLY This pest has been creates problem since last 5 to 6 years. It 

damages the fruits during harvesting of the crop by making a hole on the fruit 

surface and its catter pillar damages the fruit by ha inside the fruits. This pest 

was not controlled by spraying of any type of insecticide. Relative to the other 

pests round here, it made the crops particularly bad because by fruit fly damage, 

total fruits were damaged & not controlled by spraying of any type of pesticides. 

Fruit flies losses - 7 to 8 % in bitter gourd, 4% in ridge gourd. When an attack 

develops it happens as it does ? For this question farmer could not gave any 

satisfactory answer. It is as bad as because by fruit fly attack, the total fruits 

become unsuitable for consumption purposes & not controlled by spraying of any type 

of pesticide. About its development & severity farmer also could not gave any 

satisfactory answer. He told that the pest is perhaps to be same in every year. The 

pests differ from other pests by its damage i.e. a foul smell was coming from the 

fruits. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Farmer was only used the spraying of pesticides like sevin & 

endosulfan for controlling the pest & he does not used pheromone trap and poison bait 

method of control. Spraying of pesticides like sevin & endosulfan: Farmer have been 

using it since last 5 years & he started this method of control by an advice of 

pesticide shop keeper near Khurda town. He started spraying because he noticed that 

many fruits were damaged by some types of pests but he actually does not knew the 

name fruit fly and sprayed as a means of any type of pests. Overall, farmer rated it 

as middling good. 

SEMI-LOOPER CONTROL The farmer was using the pesticide like hildan for the control of 


semi looper pest bitter gourd at an 7 to 8 or 10 to 15 days interval depending upon 

the crop condition. By attack of semilooper, around 20 to 25 % of fruits are lost 

though spraying of pesticide was done. For the control of semilooper, he mostly used 

the pesticide hildan & result also satisfactory. Farmer does not use any type of 

adhesive during spraying. Farmer sprayed all the three inner parts & he does not used 

any traditional method of pest management. He stopped spraying prior to harvest at 

about 7 days. The gourds that are sprayed with pesticide are not consumed & sold this 

product to the local marketing agent. Farmer could not give any satisfactory answer 

regarding the question why the semilooper pest is not getting killed. The shopkeeper 

of Khurda was advised mainly about plant protection matter to the farmer. Farmer does 

not use any protection while spraying & he has to faced difficulty schedule based on 

pest observance. 

#B016 DATE: 02/06/04 TEAM: HSS/JMS/AV. Village: Pitapalli {This is the wide-area 

qualitative post-experiment study. The farmers are playing cards and don’t want to 

come and talk. Could we have a tea (“bhojun”) or similar (good idea)? All a bit 

sleepy. Not very dynamic.} 

GOURD PROBLEMS The economy round here revolves around bitter gourd. Heavy rain in 

2004 led to seed rotted and the area under bitter gourd was reduced. Everybody wants 

loans but cannot repay. Not been a good year. Farmers gather evidently a bit 

reluctantly. Here, but not in the rest of India, people like round gourds, not long 

ones. 

WIDE-AREA CONTROL EFFECTS The infestation of “white insect” (FF) has been less. Last 

year was much more. It was because of the medicine. The population was very less. 

WIDE-AREA CONTROL PROSPECTS It is better, says the farmer, if the whole village is 

sprayed. Farmers would spray their own fields only, not the whole area. But if the 

government would spray that would be good. Noone wants to spray “useless areas”. If 

the spray could have been a bit earlier this would have been better. (JS asks how 

could it have been better when infestation was less than 0.1%?) 

COOPERATIVE STRUCTURES Are there any things farmers do cooperatively? Anything done 

in groups? No - all do independently. What about the wells? No. What about marketing? 

No need to set up a cooperative when the established network is there & working - 

middlemen come and buy. 

WIDE-AREA CONTROL PROBLEMS Were there any problems with the wide-area application? No 

- nothing. Somebody told us somebody said the leaf-folder was made worse by it (One 

farmer has complained that BAT increases population of semilooper). No, not us 

(emphatic shakes of heads). Were there problems with people in the fields - worries 

about others coming into people’s crops and trampling? No - if people are doing 

something for us we are happy. Did it cause any harm, e.g. to bees? Some farmers 

asked about goats and other animals - these were worries. But no negative impact was 

seen. 

INITIAL IMPRESSIONS Were you worried before we started? Yes - before the first time 

there were worries it might do harm - a new insecticide. Did you know that it was not 

just an insecticide but bait too? We knew that it was a food. 

COORDINATED CONTROL PROSPECTS Apart from the useless areas, would people all treat 

their own farms at once if they thought it would bring a benefit? A number of factors 

(1) - not everybody is in the village on the same day; (2) - the sprayers are not 

owned but hired - very few own sprayers, there are only 3 or 4 in the village. Would 

the removal of the need for a spray help - e.g. if we could apply with a broom? They 

couldn’t all spray on the same day even if everybody owned a sprayer - the labour 

needs are too high. Labour. Families all have different priorities, all have 

different jobs they think more important. 


GOURD PESTS The semi-looper is the worst problem (Diaphinia?); 2nd epilachna; FF is 

3 rd . 

FRUIT FLY CONTROLS If protein hydrolysate were sold would anyone buy it? Yes - they 

would. Even though it is particular and specific and controls nothing else? Yes. 

Would people make and use a bait of jaggery or banana if were as good? Yes they 

would. They have no experience of other fruit fly controls - they were not using 

insecticide or anything else before we came along. Has our control made them realise 

fruit fly losses may be larger than they thought? They think losses are about 20. 

They were not doing anything before, but now they will. One farmer was a bitter gourd 

grower but couldn’t grow them in 2004 because of the rains, but still it worked. 

PANCHAYYAT Who installed the pump for the drinking water. Panchayyat. Every village 

in India has a pump put in by the Panchayyat. Would the Panchayyat do pest control? 

Probably no. 

@~V - VARANASI 

#V001 DATE: 05/02/04 TEAM: SR, SS, SPS. Village: Ramna. He has farm area of about 4 

bigha and he has to feed 20 family members. The farm family is not doing any other 

job outside farm. 

CROPS He said that he is growing Dolichos, cowpea, bitter gourd and tomato. 

BITTER GOURD He said that he is growing this crop since 20 years. He adopted by 

seeing the neighbour crops. He felt bitter gourd is remunerative in local market. He 

has sown the crop in July and October. October crop is mostly grown in river beds. 

BITTER GOURD PESTS He experienced that the kharif crop suffers most from leaf curl, 

jassid and leaf folder/fruit borer (Diaphania indica). The farmer didn't have 

knowledge about fruitfly as a pest and its infestation. 

PEST CONTROL Leaf curl - Farmers locally call it as 'Gurcha'. He said that this pest 

is serious when the crop is in initial stage. He sprayed Curacron + Karate + 

Cypermethrin + growth regulator 150 ml/15 litre 3 days interval. 

FRUIT FLY July-sown crop suffers more from fruit fly than the October crop. For 

controlling fruit flies he did not use any separate insecticide but he sprays 

Curacron + Karate + Cypermethrin + growth regulator 150 ml/15 litre at 3 days 

interval. For the first time he started taking advice from a pesticide shopkeeper of 

Varanasi town. 




CROPS He said that he is growing bitter gourd, Dolichos and brinjal. 




GOURD PESTS He experienced that the kharif crop suffers most from leaf curl, jassid 

and leaf folder/fruit borer (Diaphania indica). The farmer didn't have knowledge 

about fruitfly as a pest and its infestation. 



Cypermethrin + growth regulator 150ml/15 litre @ 3 days interval. 


FRUIT FLIES July sown crop suffers more from fruit fly than the October crop. For 






bigha and he has to feed 5 family members. The farm family is not doing any other job 

outside farm. 

CROPS He said that he is growing bitter gourd and Dolichos. 












Curacron + Karate + Cypermethrin + growth regulator 150ml/15 litre at 3 days 





outside farm. 

CROPS He practised mixed crop of bitter gourd along with muskmelon in October. 

Besides these crops are raised in river bed mostly having sandy soil. Dolichos bean 

is also an important vegetable grown in kharif season. 




GOURD PESTS He experienced that the kharif crop suffers most from leaf curl, jassid 

and leaf folder/fruit borer (Diaphania indica). The farmer didn't have knowledge 

about fruitfly as a pest and its infestation. 











outside farm. 


CROPS He practised mixed crop of bitter gourd along with muskmelon in October. 

Besides these crops are raised in river bed mostly having sandy soil. Dolichos bean 

is also an important vegetable grown in kharif season. 















#V006 DATE: 05/02/04 TEAM: SR, SS, SPS. Village: Ramna. He has farm area of about 7.5 



CROPS He said that he is growing cowpea, okra, bitter gourd and Dolichos. 










FRUIT FLIES July sown crop suffers more from fruitfly than the October crop. For 

controlling fruitflies he did not use any separate insecticide but he sprays Curacron 

+ Karate + Cypermethrin + growth regulator 150 ml/15 litre at 3 days interval. For 

the first time he started taking advice from a pesticide shopkeeper of Varanasi town. 

#V007 DATE: 06/02/04 TEAM: SR, SS, SPS. Village: Ahi. He has farm area of about 7 



CROPS He said that he is growing bitter gourd, chilli, brinjal and tomato. 



has sown the crop in June. He got fruit from August to December. He has sown only 

local variety. 





LEAF CURL He said that this serious pest when crop is in initial stage. This pest is 

locally known as Gurcha. He sprayed Tataphen (50 ml/20 lit.) + Dithen M-45 (10 g/20 

lit.) + Bavistin (10 g/20 lit.) + Curacron (20 ml/20 lit.) after one week interval. 

FRUIT FLY July sown crop suffers more from fruit fly than the October crop. For 





#V008 06/02/04 TEAM: SR, SS, SPS. Village: Ahi. He has farm area of about 4.5 bigha 

and he has to feed 20 family members. The farm family is not doing any other job 

outside farm. 

CROPS He said that he is growing bitter gourd, chilli and okra. 

BITTER GOURD He said that he is growing this crop since 5 years. He adopted by seeing 

the neighbour crops. He felt bitter gourd is remunerative in local market. He has 

sown the crop in June. He got fruit from August to December. He sown only local 

variety. 




LEAF CURL He said that this serious pest when crop is in initial stage. This pest is 

locally known as Gurcha. He sprayed Phankil (100 ml/50 lit.) + Dithen M-45 (100 g/50 

lit.) + Biomagic (20 ml/20 lit.) after one week interval. 

FRUIT FLY July sown crop suffers more from fruit fly than the October crop. For 

controlling fruit flies he did not use any separate insecticide but he sprays Phankil 

(100 ml/50 lit.) + Dithen M-45 (100 g/50 lit.) + Biomagic (20 ml/20 lit.) at 3 days 



#V008 14/05/05 TEAM: SR, SS, SPS, JMS. {Evaluation of village-level wide-area 

experiment.} 

WIDE-AREA CONTROL The control worked but the villagers were not very enthusiastic. 

Perhaps a factor was that gourds are only a smallish percentage of the total surface 

area of the village. 

@~L - LUCKNOW {Survey was conducted in three fruit belts viz. Lucknow- Barabanki 

-Faizabad (mango) and Kanpur (guava-beside-cucurbits). Survey conducted during 

different parts of the year 2003 covered ten orchards having area large, medium and 

small farmers. Mango is the major crop in the land holdings. Vegetable (cucurbits), 

mustard, pea, gram and fodder also grown in the area which other wise generally used 

as a passage or remains fallow.} 

#L001 DATE: 26/07/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Gulabkhera. Status: Large/Wealthy Farmer. 

I only own farm total area five ha. Five members of my family depend on this land and 

I have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Mango is the main crop. Mustard is also grown in fallow land during winter. 

Mango is being grown for the last three decades mainly because it is in the periphery 

of fruit belt. Initially crop performed quite satisfactory. It gives high return if 

market price is good. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER is the main pest. Its attack started at the time of panicle 


initiation stage resulting in heavy losses. Infestation was heavy during this year, 

so I sprayed cypermethrin @ 0.5 ml/lit. of water. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG The second most serious pest causes damage during Jan.-April. 

Its attack is a regular feature. Folidol dusting around tree trunk with banding by 

polythene was done. 

PEST 3 - FRUIT FLY is a problem only in late maturing varieties causing 30-33% 

damage. Attack started just before ripening of fruit. Early harvesting of fruits was 

done. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Early harvesting plus spray with malathion @ 2 ml/lit. of water was 

done. Not aware about MAT and BAT technology. 

#L002 DATE: 26/07/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Kanar, Status: Large/Wealthy Farmer. I 

only own farm total area five ha. Four members of my family depend on this land and 

have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Beside mango (the major crop) sweet pea is also grown in marginal fallow land. 

Started managing orchard for the last three decades. Planting was done four decades 

back. Heavy infestation of mango hopper and mealy bug are the serious problems. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER is main pest in this area since a long time ago. Its 

infestation occur at the panicle initiation stage of the crop. Infestation was low 

particularly during this year so one spray of monocrotophos @ 1.25 ml/lit. of water 

was done. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALY BUG is second most serious pest. Attack was very heavy during 

this year. Folidol dusting and polythene banding of tree trunk was done. 

PEST 3 - FRUIT FLY is quite new in the area. This year infestation was about 29-39% 

which started just before ripening of the fruits. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Early harvesting and spray of malathion @ 2 ml/lit. of water was 

done. 

#L003: DATE: 26/07/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Habibpur, Status: Large/Wealthy Farmer. 

I only own farm total area five ha. Five members of family depend on my farm harvest 

for whole year and I have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Mango is the main crop with some vegetables during winter. I started managing 

mango for ten years because my village is in the fruit belt. First time it performed 

satisfactory. It gives high return if market price is good. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER is main pest in my orchard which started attacking at the time 

of panicle initiation stage and causes losses. This year infestation was heavy. Two 

sprays one NSKE (5%) and monocrotophos @ 1.25 ml/lit. of water were done. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG is also serious pest in my orchard causes damage during Jan. 

to April. Its attack is a regular phenomena. Attacks started from Feb. to April. This 

year attack was heavy so dusting of Folidol was done . 

PEST 3 - FRUIT FLY is an emerging problem mostly found in late maturing varieties of 

mango. It attacks just before ripening of the fruit. Early harvesting of fruit and 

send to the market was done. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Only early harvesting was done. 

#L004: DATE: 13/08/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Masauli, Status: Large/Wealthy Farmer. I 


only own farm total area five ha. Nine members of my family depend for farm harvest 

for whole year and I have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Mango is the major crop. Rice, wheat, mustard and gram are grown in marginal 

land. Started managing the orchard since five years. During this period heavy attack 

of mealy bug and mango hoppers was faced. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER was major pest damaging severely during the month of Feb. and 

April. Infestation was moderate during this year. Spray of NSKE (5%) was done. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG is second most important pest. It's a regular feature in the 

orchard. I used Folidol dusting three times around the tree trunk. No awareness about 

polythene banding. 

PEST 3 - FRUIT FLY is becoming a serious problem mostly in late maturing varieties. 

Attack started just before the ripening of fruit. 

PEST 4 - MANGO LEAF WEBBER is the major problem in old trees. Caterpillars feed on 

leaf surface by scrapping later they make web of tender shoots and leaves together 

and feed within. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Early harvesting was done to save the fruit. 

#L005: DATE: 14.08.03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Katrauli, Status: Medium Farmer. I own 

farm total area three ha. Six members of my family depend on this farm harvest for 

whole year and I have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Besides mango major crop rice, wheat and mustard are also grown on the marginal 

land. Started managing the orchards for the last three years which is only ten year 

old. First time it performed satisfactorily. High income is assured provided market 

price is good. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER is major pest in the village and moderate damage occur during 

panicle initiation stage. Infestation was moderate during Feb. to April this year. 

One spray of NSKE (5%) was done. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG is a regular pest in the orchard and is also second most 

important pest. Folidol dusting (2 times) around the tree trunk was done. No 

awareness about polythene banding. 

PEST 3 - MANGO FRUIT FLY is also becoming a problem in the orchard resulting 30-35% 

damage in late varieties which starts just before the ripening of the fruit. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL No control measures adopted. 

#L006: DATE: 19/08/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Khairanpur, Status: Medium Farmer. I own 

farm total area two ha. Six members of my family depend on this farm harvest for 

whole year and I have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Mango is the major crop. Rice, wheat, mustard and gram are grown on marginal 

land. Started managing the orchard for last five years. First time its performance 

was not satisfactory due to mango malformation. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER becomes a problem in the month of Feb. to April at the panicle 

initiation. This year infestation was moderate. NSKE (5%) and endosulfan (0.05%) 

spray were done. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG causes damage in old trees which starts from Jan. to April. 

Folidol dusting and NSKE (5 %) around the tree trunk were done. 


PEST 3 - MANGO FRUIT FLY caused damage about 30-35%. Attack started at the time of 

maturity. Early harvesting of fruits was done to save the crop send to the market. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL Early harvesting plus malathion (1.25 ml/lit. of water) was 

sprayed. No idea about BAT and MAT technology. 

#L007: DATE: 19/07/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Mall, Status: Medium Farmer. Total area 

two ha. land. Eight family members depend on this farm and produce is not sufficient 

to fulfil all requirements. 

CROPS Mango is the major crop. Wheat, mustard and some fodder crops are grown on 

vacant areas. The first time crop return was not satisfactory due problem of 

alternate bearing in mango tree. This year got good return due to the on season. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER was very destructive pest. Major problem at time of panicle 

initiation stage and continue up to April. monocrotophos (0.05 %) spray gave good 

results. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG est II: Mango mealy bug is also important pest. Damage occur 

during Feb. to April. Monocrotophos (0.05%) spray plus polythene banding in the month 

of Jan. gave good results 

PEST 3 - MANGO FRUIT FLY prevalent in the area but not considered important. About 

25-30% damage occur in some late maturing varieties. It is major problem in May-June. 

Not aware about development and its biology. 

FRUIT FLY CONTROL One spray of endosulfan (0.05%) in April plus early harvesting is 

being practised. No idea about BAT and MAT application. 

#L008: DATE: 11/06/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Kakori, Status: Medium Farmer. Total 

area two ha. land. Nine family members depend on this and farm produce is not 

sufficient to fulfil all requirements. 

CROPS Mango is the only crop as it falls in the mango fruit belt being a typical 

micro climate for mango cultivation. Faces lot of problems due to insect pests. Used 

banned insecticides which caused heavy losses owing to in cost-benefit ratio. 

PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER most dangerous pest in the months of Feb. - April. This year 

infestation was not very heavy. No control measures were used. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG Mango mealy bug is also one of the destructive pests since 

some times. It becomes the major pest of mango in the month of Feb.- April and 

infestation was heavy. Sprays and dusting of different insecticides could not able to 

manage them. 

PEST 3 - MANGO FRUIT FLY caused damage to mango fruit. Mango fruit fly population was 

highest during May- June. Late maturing varieties are affected severely and not aware 

about the development and biology of pest. 

MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLY For controlling fruit flies insecticide (sevin) was used. 

This was done with the consultation of local pesticide shopkeepers. 

#L009: DATE: 15/06/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Kakori, Status: Medium Farmer. Owns farm 

total area 2.3 ha. Land. Nine family members depend on this farm for whole year and 

we have no other job outside farming. 

CROPS Managing 100 years old orchard. Severe losses occurred due to indiscriminate 

use of pesticides, trying to manage the orchard now and high returns are assured when 

market price is good. 


PEST 1 - MANGO HOPPER is number one pest in this area causing damage during 

Feb.-April. Monocrotophos is used for the controlling the pest which is able to 

control (mango hopper) to some extent. 

PEST 2 - MANGO MEALYBUG Mango mealy bug is a also a destructive pest in this area. 

Polythene banding around the tree trunk was done plus Folidol dusting controlled the 

pest to some extent. 

PEST 3 - MANGO FRUIT FLY caused about 25 -33% damage. Larvae eat the internal 

contents of the fruit as a result the fruit becomes unfit for consumption. Population 

is highest during May- Jun. Late maturing varieties are affected severely about 

35-40%.Not aware about development and biology of fruit fly. 

MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLY For controlling fruit flies we did not use separate measures 

only endosulfan spray was done. No idea about BAT and MAT application. 

#L010: DATE: 26/06/03 TEAM: RPS/AM. Village: Katri, on the river bank of Ganga river, 

Kanpur, Status: Small farmer. Own farm total area 0.2 ha. land. Five family members 

depend on this land for feed farm harvest for whole year and no other job outside 

farming. 

CROPS Guava is the major crop and cucurbits are grown on marginal land. This area has 

some specific conditions due to which round the year vegetable production and two 

crops of guava one in the month June- July and second in the month of Nov.-Dec. 

(Winter) are grown. 

PEST 1 - FRUIT FLY is a major pest in his area due to some host crops in the whole 

year (guava and cucurbits). Caused damage about 35-45% and started damage May in 

(cucurbits) and July in (guava). Used number of insecticides for control of pests. 

MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLY For controlling fruit flies insecticide sevin, monocrotophos, 

endosulfan and Folidol are used without consideration of hazards in the environment. 

We have no idea about BAT and MAT. 

PEST 2 - ANAR BUTTERFLY caused damage in the month of July (rainy season) in guava 

crop. No control measure was used (damage 10-13 %). 

#L011: DATE 22/05/04 TEAM: RPS/AM/JMS Kanpur Village 'A'. Group of gourd farmers on 

the Ganga river bank. 

CROPS Are growing bitter g, bottle g, cucumber, smooth g, pumpkin. 15 years ago this 

was in the river then was drained 15 years ago. Put in guava and cucurbits and this 

is what they have grown ever since. Why these particular crops? A sandy soil which is 

good for cucurbits. The actual village is some way away - these are temporary 

shelters for some people some of the time. To guard crops against theft. This floods 

in July and August. Theft is a problem in the vegetables more than in the guava. 

There is a whole deciduous temporary village of huts beside the river, on land which 

floods every year. Guava is very good in winter. Guava tolerates being flooded when 

the river rises. It likes the very sandy soil. 

IRRIGATION They have irrigation pump but don't always need it - a good deal of 

moisture stays in the soil. The water and water table are very close. The water pump 

is turned on to have its photograph taken; several men quickly drink as much as they 

can from the stream. 

CUCURBITS Cucurbits are grown because the soil is sandy - there is a bit of okra 

grown, but the soil is not ideal. Also musk melon, which is heavily infested by FF, 

and watermelon, which is not infested. Watermelon yields well and the soil is 

suitable. Need for water is no bigger than the others. Aphids attack the leaves. 


Cucurbits can be grown year-round here because it has natural advantages. Please 

organise a goshti for us to organise help for pest control - aphids and Heliothis. 

PRICES Prices and their fluctuation are important. In the off-season one cucumber is 

5rs (September and October). Now it is 1rupee - in the market in Lucknow - and only 

50paise in the local markets round here. They are now putting in the crop which will 

yield at maximum price, so brings in good income. 

FRUIT FLY FF infestation is very severe. Aphid transmitting virus is becoming a 

problem in vegetables. Aphids are getting worse, but coccinelid predators are to be 

seen. FF is still the worst pest overall. JS is fed vast quantities of cucumber until 

he starts to feel quite ill. In vegetative stage aphid is worse; in fruiting fruit 

fly is worse. Fruit fly too is worse than it used to be. Why? If it rains the fruit 

fly gets worse; it also gets worse if it is cold, particularly at night. Bottle gourd 

is most preferred host for egg-laying. Pumpkin is not very heavily attacked by FF. 

PESTICIDES They discover controls by taking infested fruit and/or leaves to the 

pesticide dealers who make recommendations. {Many are very toxic eg dimecron; 

phosphamidon is shown - it is still available in the market although banned in 2002; 

they have a growth regulator to control flowering that they seem to think is an 

insecticide}. 

PICKINGS Bottle gourd is picked every day or every two days, he has done 40 pickings 

on this stand already. Started 2 to 4 weeks back, 10rs/kg. Production season is: sow 

in January, pick all the way through from March to July with bottle gourd. Guava by 

contrast gives only two crops a year. Smooth gourd is the same as bottle gourd, Sow 

in winter, pick up to Jul 15. Cucumber 45 pickings. 

BAT & MAT The IMFFI cue-lure traps control the FF. They see dead flies. All very 

nice. But does the infestation level actually go down? Yes. They did 6 sprays of PH 

and that didn't work. CL does work. Now bottle gourd is just coming and FF attacks at 

a very early stage, so all are very worried. 

#L012. DATE 22/05/04 TEAM: JS/RPS/AM Kanpur guava village 'A' guava farmer. 

INTERCROPPING Has tomato in among the guava. It is over now, but very profitable. 

GUAVA FRUIT FLY CONTROL We'll put in the blocks in June 1st week. The monitoring 

traps have just a few flies. He says last year there was no infestation of guava at 

all by ff all because of our farm-level ME block traps. He is happy because in the 

wet season fruit fly population so high that guava is scarce, and the price is much 

higher. So it was a good wet season for him. Winter guava takes more time. This guava 

is starting now and goes up to July/August. Winter guava is continuous picking for 3 

months. FF is present in the winter guava, but much less than in wet season. You see 

baskets of guava for sale in the market, with fruit fly infestation clearly visible. 

FF is in guava and cucurbits, not in tomato or brinjal. There are about 25km of guava 

here. 

#L012. DATE 22/05/04 TEAM: JS/RPS/AM Kanpur guava village 'B' farmer. 

FRUIT FLY GUAVA LOSSES Farmer harvests 40-50 quintals a day. He said if one quintal 

is infested I don't care. But after we put the ME in his orchard he said Please put 

it all over next year - the implication is he underestimated the real losses, and was 

surprised at by how much fruit fly removal increase yield. 

WHEAT/GOURD INTERCROP TRANSITION There is now a wheat intercrop below the guava in 

many places - has now just been harvested and stubble is visible. Probably in a few 

years cucurbits will take its place - the economic return is better, and the 

irrigation and so on which will be needed is already in place. 


PROJECT MEMORANDUM 

on behalf of the 

Department for International Development (DFID) 

Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy (RNRRS)h 

Research Programme: CROP PROTECTION 

Production System: Peri-Urban 

Project Number: 

Project Title: 


Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel (female) 

Abbreviated Title: FRUIT FLIES IN INDIA 

Version: General use / Reference 

Date: 16 October 2001 

Executive Summary 

Fruit flies in India cause annual losses estimated at Rs2946 crores (£433 million) in mango, 

citrus, guava and sapota alone. Additional losses are as high as 35 to 40% of cucurbits such as gourds 

and melons, many of which are important nutrition sources for the rural poor and first steps to 

commercial cultivation by subsistence farmers. Controls are absent or rely on cover sprays. 

Better control may be obtained with little expense and insecticide by exploiting the attraction of 

fruit flies to protein food baits and sexual “para-pheromone” lures. Drawing on experience by UK and 

Indian scientists, this project will, by a systematic and comprehensive cost-benefit evaluation, along 

with social studies with farmers, find the most cost-effective, practical and sustainable controls. Flies 

may also be managed by area-wide controls, which will be developed by village-level studies of 

cooperative control, working with villagers and their institutions. 

The benefits of this project will be the best possible farm and village-level controls of these 

serious pests. Earlier research by Imperial College has indicated that reductions in losses of between 

73% and 100% may be obtainable by the use of commercial preparations. This project will evaluate 

home-made alternatives, and area-wide operations, for cost-effectiveness, environmental benefit and 

practical usefulness to farmers.

CONTENTS PAGE 

SECTION A: KEY INFORMATION 2 

SECTION B: UPTAKE, DEMAND AND GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS 4 

SECTION C: SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND 9 

SECTION D: OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES 11 

Appendix I: The Fruit Fly Problem in India 18 

Appendix II: Scientific Research on Fruit Flies in India 23 

Appendix III: Work Plan 33 

Appendix IV: Prior Scientific Publications 

A: Single-killing-point laboratory assessments of bait controls 49 

B: Single-killing-point field assessments of lure and bait controls 52 

C: On-farm assessments of distribution, damage and control 62 

Appendix V: References 7 

SECTION A: KEY INFORMATION 

PROJECT TEAM 

1. Applicant Details Dr John D Mumford, Deputy Head of Department, 

Environmental Science and Technology, 

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 

Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7PY 

Tel 020 7594 2206 

Fax 020 7594 2308 

Email address j.mumford@ic.ac.uk 

2. Collaborator Details 

SUMMARY PROJECT DETAILS 

3. Project Research Summary 

Dr John M Stonehouse, Research Associate, 



Royal School of Mines, London SW7 2BP 

j.stonehouse@ic.ac.uk 

Dr Murdoch McAllister, Lecturer in Statistical Risk Assessment, 



Royal School of Mines, London SW7 2BP 

m.mcallister@ic.ac.uk 

This project will develop effective on-farm and village-level controls of Tephritid fruit flies, which 

cause great damage to fruit and cucurbits in India. A multi-disciplinary survey will establish the 

economic, social and environmental costs of these fruit flies, and the constraints to their improved 

management. A systematic and comprehensive evaluation of food bait and sexual parapheromone lure 

controls, along with social studies of the resources, priorities and perceptions of farmers and village 

institutions, will develop controls and management strategies that will be practical, effective and 

sustainable at farm and village level. 

2

4. Starting and finishing dates 

1 January 2002 to 31 March 2004 

6. Keywords (including subject, species, countries etc.) 

Fruit flies, Tephritid, India, South Asia, on-farm control, village-level control, socio-economics, fruit, 

cucurbits 

7. RNRRS Production System and Programme Purpose 

Peri-Urban Interface Production System. 

Purpose 1: “Volume, quality and seasonal availability of food and crop products improved through the 

reduction of economic and physical losses caused by pests”. 

8. Is the research strategic/adaptive? 

Adaptive. 

9. Commodity Base 

Tree fruits (e.g. mango, guava, jujube), arable cucurbits (e.g. gourds, melon). 

10. Geographic Focus 

Research will take place in India. Outputs will be relevant in the South Asian Subcontinent. 

11. Target Institutions 

Collaborating institutions (see Question 2) 

Other institutions with current relations: 

Fruit & Vegetable Unit, Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Limited (National Dairy Development 

Board), Industrial Area Phase I, Mangolpuri, Delhi 110 083 

Tel 792 1729 

safal1@del3.vsnl.net.in 

AME, PO Box 7836, #368, 4th Cross, 3rd Phase, JP Nagar, Bangalore 560 078 

Tel 080 658 2303/2835 

amebang@giasbg01.vsnl.net.in 

Kerala Horticulture Development Programme, BDR Bhavan, Foreshore Road, Kochi - 682 016, 

Kerala 

Tel 0484 368713 

khdprog@md3.vsnl.net.in 

CARE India, 27 Haus Khas Village, New Delhi 110 016 

Tel 011 656 4101 

dkapur@careindia.org 

Other target institutions 

Extension services 

NGOs 

Growers’ and buyers’ cooperatives 

3

12. Project Location 

(Under central direction by Imperial College and Dr Abraham Verghese) 

Field Research (eight locations), formed into three clusters in different zones of India – West 

(Gujarat), South (Kerala) and East-Central (the other three):- 

Gujarat Agricultural University (GAU) (three campuses at Anand, Ghandevi and Palanpur) 

Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) (two campuses at Thrissur and Thrivananthapuram) 

Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 

Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture (CISH), Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 

Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bhubaneshwar, Orissa 

Knowledge Review (one location):- 

Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi 

13. If the project is located overseas or if there is an overseas collaborator, has the 

approval of the overseas government been obtained? If so, provide details. 

Yes, provisionally. The project has been developed in detailed discussion with counterparts in India, 

through ICAR. At the time of writing the draft Project Memorandum has been agreed, along with its 

proposed budget, among all the active collaborators, and is being processed by ICAR and, with ICAR 

support, other necessary Indian Government Agencies. The project will be covered under the extant 

Memorandum of Understanding between NR International and ICAR. 

14. Is the project linked to work funded by other DFID sources or other funding 

agencies? 

There are no direct links with other extant projects. Informal links exist with several other Projects and 

research groups, listed under 17. 

SECTION B: DEMAND, UPTAKE AND GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS 

15a. What is the project's purpose? 

Programme output 1.1: Improved methods for the control of weeds, insect pests, diseases and 

nematodes in market gardening and horticulture enterprises developed and promoted. 

Specific Research Objectives: 

1 – understanding of constraints to uptake of improved farm-level controls 

2 – understanding of how bait and lure controls may be (a) optimised with regard to effect and 

(b) made acceptable to farmers 

3 – understanding of how coordinated village-wide control may be (a) effective and (b) 

implemented by social coordination at village level 

The aim of this study is to research and develop ways to reduce the problems of fruit flies 

(Diptera:Tephritidae) for small farmers. The outputs will be farm- and village-level suppression 

technologies which are effective, low-cost, profitable in the short-term and sustainable in the long, with 

minimal insecticide use, risk to human health, domestic and beneficial organisms (such as honeybees 

and the natural enemies of pests) and collateral damage such as stimulation of the target population to 

evolve resistance. 

4

Fruit flies, although a serious pest, are currently largely uncontrolled or are controlled by cover sprays 

of insecticide. First, the chance of better control with reduced inputs of money, labour and 

(particularly) pesticide is offered by controls based on attraction to food baits (Bait Application 

Technique, BAT) and sexual parapheromone lures (which attract males and are thus termed Male 

Annihilation Technique or MAT): this project aims to identify the constraints to the use of these 

improved technologies, and to optimise their utility to farmers at farm level. Second, due to the mobility 

of flies and their ability to immigrate unaffected into areas protected by attractant controls (i.e. mated 

females into MAT-protected areas, fed adults into BAT-protected areas) there may be economies of 

scale if controls can be coordinated over areas larger than single farms: this study aims to study both 

the field efficacy of area-wide control and the social structures which may allow farmers to make use 

of it. If these methods can be made practical for farmers, they offer considerable improvements in 

control. The cooperation in control may also lead to further cooperation in fruit marketing and quality 

which could improve rural incomes. 

15b. What developmental problems or needs is the project aimed at? 

A full analysis is given in Appendix I: The Fruit Fly Problem in India. The following is a summary. 

Importance of Hosts India is the world’s largest producer of tropical and subtropical fruit. The 

economic value (wholesale) of annual production of mango, citrus, guava and sapota alone is estimated 

as Rs 199 244 million (GB£ 2 930 million). Beyond commercial estimates, fruit and cucurbits (the 

principal hosts of Tephritids) play a vital role in maintaining subsistence for rural people, providing 

vitamins and other nutrients (as well as dietary diversity) at a time when nutritional quality is seen as of 

increasing importance as survival-level poverty continues to decline in India (the 2001 88 th Indian 

Science Congress addressed Food, Nutrition and Environmental Security). Many are also a key 

“first step” to commercial production for subsistence farmers who can grow a small amount of tree 

fruit or cucurbit vines for sale, but have very little to invest in their production and protection. Guavas 

and cucurbits are largely the preserve of small producers, generally considered unsuitable for major 

commercialisation, and monitored by few official statistics. 

Infestation by Fruit Flies The available evidence suggests that losses are considerable – typically 

20% of untreated mangoes, 30% of sapota and jujube, and 40% of gourds, melons and summer 

guavas. The incidence of controls is little known, but these are limited, and largely confined to cover 

sprays of insecticide, which provide poor control and incur environmental and health risks. 

Economic Losses Preliminary and provisional calculations given in Appendix I indicate that annual 

losses at wholesale level may be Rs 17 476 million (GB£ 257 million) in mango, Rs 5 508 million (£81 

million) in citrus, (Rs 5 032 million (£74 million) in guava and Rs 1 428 million (£21 million) in sapota, 

totalling for these four crops Rs 29 460 million (£433 million). Losses may be proportionally higher 

among subsistence and small-commercial “first step” growers with limited access to insecticidal 

controls. 

Additional Significance Fruit flies in India are also a good case where research, particularly social 

research, can deliver real improvements. Information, including the efficacy of controls, exists, but is 

little used (see Section 17 and Appendix II). There is a need for integration of information to obtain a 

quantification of the optimum control in any particular case, and for social research to understand what 

farmers will actually use, to provide specific management recommendations and plans which are in 

each case economic, appropriate and sustainable. Additionally, Tephritid control is not a “lost cause” 

where cover sprays are the only control that farmers will trust – methyl eugenol, which has no other 

use than Tephritid monitoring and control, is widely sold in India – and this may combine with the deep 

roots of minimum-pesticide pest control in India’s cultural and religious traditions of harmony with 

5

nature, and its wide promotion by the country’s exceptionally large and effective NGO community, to 

provide a route for low-pesticide controls, which are of known effectiveness, to be made practical and 

profitable, and thus actually used, by small farmers. Low-pesticide Tephritid controls can and do work, 

and if optimised and based on an understanding of farmer priorities and perceptions, may not only 

provide valuable tools for farmers but in so doing provide a case study of the paradigm of technology 

transfer. 

15c. What is the evidence for the demand or need for the research? 

An economic assessment of the damage caused by flies is presented in Appendix I. 

A study by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh in 2000 identified Tephritids as one of the ten most 

serious problems of the entire agricultural sector. The melon fly in particular has long been considered 

the most serious pest of cucurbits in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and other states. 

A high level of importance has been assigned to this problem, expressed as interest in participating in 

this Project, by ICAR and the institutions listed under (2) above, as well as by bodies in Bihar and 

Maharashtra. 

15d. What will the project contribute to resolving these demands or needs and over what 

time-scale? 

Problem Analysis Component It is important for any pest control to know what species are 

significant where - particularly in a case such as Tephritids where species differ in their susceptibility 

to controls. A rational pest management strategy needs understanding of the pests’ economic and 

social damage, to which crops and social groups this damage falls, what farmers do in response and 

how effective these responses are. This information is essential for the cost-benefit analysis of the 

returns to investment in management (including research such as this Proposal). It should be a direct 

derivation of the social benefits sought by the project’s ultimate aim: these are often not directly 

economically quantifiable in the case of poverty elimination and environmental benefits, and so 

consideration must be given to social and environmental consequences, such as the environmental and 

health damage of pesticides use as a response to pests. 

Management Optimisation Component It is important that control and management options be 

assessed relative to each other, to establish which of the options is the best, not only by biological 

control effectiveness, but also by economic cost-benefit criteria and the “soft social science” factors of 

farmer acceptability, perception and practicality. The research proposed, by addressing these areas 

altogether, will produce management recommendations which not only control insects, but do so to the 

economic benefit of the farmer, and accommodate farmer perceptions and opinions so that 

recommendations are taken up and retained sustainably into the future. 

All research will run for 2.25 years. 

15e. Which are the identified target institutions? 

Research Participants All participants, although primarily research bodies, have themselves roles in 

extension and diffusion of technology, either through their own activities or through links with extension 

services. These bodies are well placed for the production of training materials and advice for use by 

extension services. 

6

Department of Agricultural Extension 

Mother Dairy This large autonomous organisation is in contact with hundreds of farmers, and has its 

own extension resources. It has expressed keen interest in participating in the evaluation of research 

outputs from the proposed project (on a non-contractual basis) and in the subsequent extension of 

useful information to its client farmers. 

Linkages with other stakeholders (e.g. NGOs such as AME and CARE) will be developed during the 

project to ensure that the dissemination pathways are as broad as possible. 

15f. What are the proposed promotion pathways for the uptake of the project outputs? 

i) Have any market studies for the outputs been produced? 

Not to our knowledge. As low-pesticide and low-input technologies these offer limited scope for 

commercial exploitation. 

ii) How will the outputs be made available to intended users? 

The technologies produced will comprise information, not material goods or equipment. As such, there 

will be little opportunity for intermediaries such as traders to make money from them, and thus for the 

free market to provide uptake paths. Outputs will instead be made available through existing extension 

channels – primarily the State Extension Services, NGOs working with villagers and cooperatives and 

associations of farmers and of purchasers and wholesalers of produce. It is hoped that NGOs and 

farmer associations will provide not only technical advice on fruit fly control but also, if this is found 

desirable, ways of social organisation to reap the benefits of cooperative area-wide control. 

iii) What are the further stages needed to develop outputs? 

For recommendations to be made at local levels as to the optimum control for any particular case, 

preliminary testing of technology recommendations in local conditions may be advisable. This may be 

undertaken by local agencies as and when required. 

iv) How, and by whom, might further stages be carried out and paid for? 

The further stages envisaged are not complicated or demanding of time and resources, and may be 

carried out by local agencies within existing budgets. 

v) What mechanisms will be used in dissemination, who will be the target 

audiences and who will handle the dissemination? 

1. Stakeholder workshop: the workshop at the end of the project will review its technical outputs and 

develop draft management plans. 

2. Personal professional contact: the research collaborators are themselves key institutions in the 

dissemination of information. 

3. Technical reports will be disseminated in the research community. It is proposed that two of the 

researchers (J Stonehouse, A Verghese) attend the 6th International Symposium on Fruit Flies 

of Economic Importance, in Stellenbosch, South Africa from 6 to 10 May 2002 

(http://www/fruitflysymposium.co.za/home/htm), and make a presentation of the background, aims, 

significance and methodology of the proposed project, to raise awareness of it among researchers. 

7

The project has links with other similar projects in the region, as listed under Section 17, and this 

liaison will disseminate the results in the research community. 

4. Published papers: although the work proposed in this project is adaptive in nature, we expect that 

published papers will form one of the main means of dissemination of outputs. The main target 

audience for these outputs will be researchers and to some extent extension workers in 

collaborating projects in South Asia and elsewhere. 

5. Extension recommendations: The final outputs are to be extension recommendations for 

management plans for fruit flies at farm and village level. 

Please note that this Memorandum and proposed budget do not include, as this would be premature, 

specific funded dissemination activities such as booklets, training materials or other publications. If 

found appropriate at a future point, separate funding may be sought. 

vi) What baseline data will be collected, and what markers and monitoring 

system will be emplaced, by the project to enable its developmental impact to be assessed? 

The Survey component of the research, described below, has as one of its explicit objectives the 

establishment of a baseline database to allow improvements in fly management to be assessed. 

15g. Who will the beneficiaries be and are there any groups who will be disadvantaged by 

the application of the research findings? 

The first beneficiaries will be researchers and extension workers in South Asia working on fruit and 

cucurbit production. The main beneficiaries will be resource-poor farmers, who will benefit from the 

research when it is adopted and applied by extension workers and NGOs. These communities may see 

a reduction in the use of chemical inputs to fruit and cucurbit production leading to reductions in pest 

losses, lower production costs, improved human, animal and environmental health and a more stable 

production system. There are no known negative impacts to this research other than possible 

reductions in profits by chemical companies. 

16. Is this proposal a continuation or extension of work already funded by DFID? 

Yes. It picks up several themes from the (smaller) CPP Peri-Urban Interface Pakistan - UK Fruit 

Fly Project, implemented between 1997 and 2000 by Imperial College and the CABI Regional 

Bioscience Centre, Rawalpindi, Pakistan (R6924 and R7447, Crop Protection Programme). The work 

of this project provided the winning entry for the DFID Renewable Natural Resources Research 

Strategy Annual Award Scheme, 2000, and the current proposal is intended to use the Award grant to 

allow the continuation and extension of a successful research strategy and methodology, while 

benefiting from lessons learnt and local experience and exploring room for improvement. 

8

SECTION C: SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND 

17. What work has previously been done, or is currently being pursued, towards the 

purpose, outputs and activities of the project? A review of literature should be included. 

A full review of the Scientific Background of research in India, including a detailed literature review, is 

attached as Appendix II. Scientific Research on Fruit Flies in India. The following is a summary. 

Tephritid Fruit Flies in India 

Incidence, Infestation, Taxonomy and Biology Over 100 technical papers have been written in the 

last decade on the Tephritid fauna of India. A great deal is known about the incidence of flies, but 

knowledge is incomplete as to quantification of losses by crops and species in all areas. Taxonomic 

organisation of the fauna is relatively well understood. Developmental biology studies have included 

development and survival rates related to extrinsic variables such as temperature, and many hostpreference 

and survival studies have illuminated the differential effects of different hosts on different 

fruit flies. There may be some knowledge gaps, particularly as to economic roles of different species, 

and the identification and filling of these is a goal of the Knowledge Review contained in this Proposal. 

Controls 

Insecticide Fruit flies are susceptible to almost all conventional insecticides. Research has shown that 

some perform better than others, particularly in combination with attractants such as food baits and 

parapheromone lures – contact insecticides are more lethal than stomach-acting ones (although both 

baits and parapheromones are eaten), and some are slightly repellent which undermines control. There 

is considerable interest in neem and other non-synthetic biological and pathogenic insecticides: many of 

these are slightly repellent (this is often how they have their effect) and so seem on first sight 

unsuitable for combination with attractants, but this has not actually to our knowledge been tested. 

Pathogens are often disfavoured by farmers because of their slow knock-down; when female fruit 

flies are attracted to baits this is often to mature eggs before first oviposition, and so the delay in the 

onset of lethality may be more acceptable in this case than in others. 

Food Baits Commercial protein hydrolysate baits, imported for experimentation, have been shown to 

control flies in India (and Bangladesh and Pakistan). With imports expensive, however, and the market 

perhaps inadequate for establishment of a national factory, experiments and recommendations have 

evaluated a wide variety of home-made attractants, including yeast extracts, vanilla, meat and fish 

broth, fruit pulp and juice, honey and sugar, sometimes fermented and often in combinations. The 

general overall impression is that protein is important, and that proteinaceous baits are superior to fruit 

pulp, in turn superior to fruit juice, in turn superior to sugar. This is, however, complicated by many 

successful evaluations of fruit (and sugar) baits over many years. There are indications of differential 

responses by different species, and of interference in interactions when lures and baits are mixed. 

Similarly, application methods – sprayers, squirting bottles, brushes and a variety of traps - have all 

been assessed in various cases, but not systematically. 

Parapheromone Lures Methyl eugenol is well-known and widely used in India. Some analogous 

home-made lures, particularly from Ocimum sanctum, have been evaluated and recommended. All are 

used for Male Annihilation Technique. Like much bait control, this generally makes use of traps; the 

alternative of wood blocks soaked in lure and insecticide, which have been shown elsewhere to be 

more robust, durable and economic, has been little evaluated. The evidence for the mutual 

augmentation of food baits and parapheromone lures is mixed at best. 

9

Cultural and Area-Wide Control The effects of the removal of infested fruit and its burial or 

destruction to kill pupae have been well studied, and similar practices are widely recommended. To 

some extent, however, these are likely to be undermined by the arrival of adult flies from untreated 

areas, and so fall under the larger heading of area-wide controls: Tephritids are generally held to be 

susceptible to area-wide controls entailing social cooperation, and are controlled over large areas in 

Israel, Mauritius and elsewhere, although the scientific study of returns to area-wide control has been 

limited by the demands for space and resources such a study would entail. Often the difficulty with the 

implementation of area-wide control, as in Mauritius, is in the social and institutional factors which may 

make it worth farmers’ while to maintain controls. In general, however, the study of the social and 

economic setting of fruit fly control, particularly at the small farmer level, has all over the world been 

studied less than biology and the mechanics of control. 

Conclusion Tephritid biology, ecology and control have been widely and effectively studied in India. 

Three areas may be identified where further research may bring benefits: 

1 – the systematic and comprehensive study of the costs and benefits of the wide variety of 

candidate baits and lures, alone and in combination 

2 – the perceptions, priorities and difficulties of farmers who have to make decisions about 

control, to illuminate how controls, even when perceived as effective by researchers, may be 

seen as practical and profitable by farmers 

3 – the quantified returns to village-level area-wide control, both with and without concurrent 

farm-level control, to see whether control at village level may be more cost-effective than that 

on the individual holding, and of how village institutions and associations may most effectively 

harness these benefits. 

Other Fruit Fly Research Activities of Relevance 

Relevant research programmes, recent and ongoing, include the following. All of them have links and 

communication with Imperial College and the proposed managers of this project. 

Indian Ocean Commission Regional Fruit Fly Programme 1996-2000, with the financial support 

of the European Commission (Convention 7.ACP.RPR.400 Identification REG(RIN)7502), carried out 

by the Entomology Divisions of the Ministries of Agriculture of Mauritius, Reunion (France) and 

Seychelles, with Technical Direction by Dr John Mumford, Imperial College. Contact: Mme Indira 

Seewooruthun, Entomology Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Food Technology and Natural Resources, 

Reduit, Mauritius. E-mail ento@intnet.mu. Website: www.fruit-flies.org. This Programme has 

evaluated important aspects of fruit fly ecology, damage and management. Studies have included interspecific 

competition, the development of controls, including home-made baits from brewers’ waste 

yeast, and the economic evaluation of farm- and village-level controls. The species of study overlap to 

some extent (e.g. Bactrocera zonata) with the Indian guild, though others (e.g. Ceratitis capitata) 

are different. Other studies have included quarantine risk assessments and the raising of public 

awareness to reduce the risks of the introduction of damaging exotic species. 

African Fruit Fly Initiative 1999-2004, with the financial support of the International Fund for 

Agricultural Development and others, carried out at the International Centre for Insect Physiology and 

Ecology. Contact: Dr Slawomir Lux, International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE), 

Nairobi, Kenya. E-mail s.a.lux@icipe.org. Website http://informatics.icipe.org/fruitfly/. This ongoing 

programme organises and coordinates fruit fly management research in several African countries. 

Studies include loss levels and distribution and economic returns to farm-level controls including homemade 

baits and application techniques. The species of study differ entirely from those in South Asia. 

10

Pakistan-UK Fruit Fly Project 1998-2000, with the financial support of UK DFID, carried out by 

Imperial College, London, and CABI Regional Bioscience Centre, Rawalpindi. Contact: Dr John 

Mumford, as under (1) above. This project evaluated bait spray and male annihilation controls in a 

variety of locations in Pakistan, and different home-made bait ingredients and application techniques 

and substrates, and male annihilation soaked blocks, with a variety of laboratory, experimental field and 

farm field technologies developed for the purpose. Results are presented in Appendix IV. 

Ongoing Fruit Fly Research of Relevance 

In many countries in and adjoining the South Asia Region, research work is continuing outside specific 

Programmes, within National Agriculture Ministry frameworks. All research groups listed work on the 

on-farm management of fruit flies, and have links with Imperial College. 

Israel Contact: Dr Yoav Gazit, “Israel Cohen” Institute for Biological Control, Bet-Dagan. E-mail 

yogazit@netvision.net.il. Work is being undertaken on the suppression of medfly and other 

pests. Medfly is currently controlled in Israel by wide-area sprays (usually aerial) of BAT, and 

research continuously seeks to improve this. More sophisticated techniques, such as SIT, are 

under consideration. 

Bangladesh Contact: Dr M Nasiruddin, Principal Scientific Officer, Division of Entomology, 

Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute. E-mail entoipm@bdcom.com. 

Malaysia Contact: Prof S Vijaysegaran, Malaysian Agricultural Research Development Institute 

(MARDI), Kuala Lumpur. E-mail svijay@mardi.my. 

South Africa Contact: Dr Brian Barnes, ARV Infruitec-Nietvoorbji, Stellenbosch. E-mail 

brian@infruit2.agric.za. 

Australia Contact Mr Bill Woods, Sr Entomologist, Agriculture Western Australia, Perth, WA. Email 

bwoods@agric.wa.gov.au 

Nepal Contact Dr Govinda Prasad Timsina, Entomologist, Agricultural Research Station-Pakhribas, 

Dhankuta. E-mail arsp@ccsl.com.np 

SECTION D: OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES 

18a. What are the outputs of the project? 

1 - Problem analysis 

1A - Quantification of fly damage, by which species and where 

1B - Social consequences, and constraints to improved management 

2 - Improvement of farm-level management 

2A - Effectiveness and profitability 

2B - Appropriateness, practicality and sustainability 

3 - Improvement of village-level management 

3A - Effectiveness and profitability 

3B - Appropriateness, practicality and sustainability 

4 - Management plans 

18b. What are the expected environmental impacts (beneficial, harmful, neutral)? 

Direct Environmental Impacts We envisage no hazards arising from the implementation of this 

project. Some insecticide applications may be carried out in the field, and insecticidal preparations will 

be evaluated in the field and laboratory, but these will all be of dosages and exposure levels less than 

those currently used by farmers. Formulations are expected to be similar to those allowed by US EPA 

for control operations on fruit flies in urban areas of Florida, California and Hawaii. All laboratory 

11

cultures of flies will be of locally-caught strains, eliminating the risk of escapes leading to the 

establishment of alien strains. 

Indirect Environmental Impacts We see no indirect environmental hazards arising from the results 

of this project. Positive environmental impacts may arise as a result of the implementation of reducedchemical 

control measures, such as reductions in insecticide exposure of non-target organisms such as 

humans, wildlife, domestic animals and beneficial species such as pollinators and pest natural enemies. 

The expansion of tree fruit production may improve soil conservation and the habitat availability to 

species such as birds of agricultural and conservation value. 

19. Describe the project activities 

The full work plan is given in Appendix III. The following is a summary of this. 

The work is proposed to take place over two and a quarter years. All field work (Activities 1.2, 2 and 

3) will take place at eight points, by five administrative centres (three in Gujarat by GAU, two in 

Kerala by KAU, one each by CISH Lucknow, IIVR Varanasi and IIHR Bhubaneshwar). The 

knowledge review (Activity 1.1) will be at one institution (IARI New Delhi, with journeys). CABI 

Bioscience will provide assistance in administration and in liaison between Indian and UK scientific 

workers. These roles and their budgets have been agreed. 

Imperial College will provide technical, training and material support, developing techniques combining 

its own past experience of Tephritid research with collaboration from local participants with local 

research backgrounds. Imperial College will develop, in consultation with participants, the datasheets, 

data spreadsheet templates, questionnaires and other research tools, to be delivered as photocopyable 

data sheets and software templates, the two developed together to produce spreadsheet files for the 

automatic processing of data, with links to allow them to be printed out in blank so that the computer 

data entry files will match the paper data sheets. Imperial College will also provide training in 

necessary research techniques: an expected benefit of this project is researchers trained and 

experienced in a variety of problem-oriented research techniques, from the trapping, identification and 

preservation of insect specimens to the cost-benefit analysis of controls and social science techniques 

such as semi-structured interviews and rapid rural appraisal. Dr Murdoch McAllister, an expert in 

biometrics and data analysis at Imperial College, has been included in the research team to ensure the 

validity of experimental designs and biometric and statistical methods and results. 

The research timetable will be anchored by two workshops to assemble all researchers together to 

exchange experience, ideas and expertise. The first is provisionally to be in January (or possibly 

February) 2002 at IARI, New Delhi, to discuss and refine the research protocol, the second in 

February or March 2004 at IIHR, Bangalore, to bring together the research team (with their 

specimens for a systematic discussion of incidence and taxonomy), to discuss findings and implications. 

The final output will be the synthesis of the outputs of the research into locally-applicable plans for 

management of flies at farm or village level, in ways which are effective, economically realistic and 

maximally profitable, with minimal costs and insecticide use, and sustainable both environmentally and 

socially in the long term. 

ACTIVITIES 

1.1: Knowledge Review 

1.1.1: Incidence mapping of flies and distribution 

1.1.2: Tabulation and synthesis of damage and loss records 

1.1.3: Review of biological research results 

1.1.4: Tabulation and analysis of records of controls 

12

This will connect the field research with the large existing body of knowledge in India, both written and 

in the form of individual expertise. It will entail the gathering of all available information in the following 

categories. Where possible, and in particular for sections 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.4 these findings will be 

tabulated. It will form part of the baseline database. Knowledge gaps will be identified. 

1.2: Survey 

1.2.1: Trapping of adults 

1.2.2: Rearing out from collected fruit 

1.2.3: Key informant interview survey 

1.2.4: Semi-structured interview survey 

This will form part of the baseline database. At eight sites around the country it will assess the 

presence and infestation of fly pests, using a combination of trap catches, rearing out of larvae from 

infested fruit, and key informant surveys to obtain quantified estimates of (a) infestation of unprotected 

hosts, (b) infestation of protected hosts and (c) incidence of protection measures. Insofar as possible 

this will be done separately by hosts and fly species in a variety of ecological zones. Complete 

coverage of the whole country is not envisaged, but it is hoped that the methodology may be refined, in 

partnership with Indian colleagues, to obtain a robust but valid approach which may cheaply be 

extended to other areas. This will be combined with a wide-area, informal Semi-Structured Interview 

(SSI) survey, to evaluate what farmers think of current control options, how they make decisions about 

fruit fly control, including criteria, information sources and rationales behind them, and what are the 

obstacles to change and improvement. 

1.3: Opening workshop. This will be held in New Delhi, at the outset of the Project. 

2: Farm-Level Control Experiments 

2.1: Laboratory single-killing-point study 

2.2: Field single-killing-point study 

2.3: On-farm control trials with farmer evaluation 

Sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 will form a hierarchy of experimental methods, ascending in realism and 

economic quantification of results, while descending in the speed, economy and convenience with 

which candidate technologies can be processed. Attention will focus on food bait (BAT) and 

pheromone lure (MAT) attractant controls controls (which offer the best chance for low-pesticide, 

effective and sustainable Tephritid controls), although cover applications (e.g. of neem ) may also be 

evaluated. The three-tiered hierarchy will build on methods developed by Imperial College in Pakistan 

(see Appendix IV, where each paper in preparation describes fieldwork with one of the three tiers), 

while at the same time, in partnership with Indian colleagues, addressing their shortcomings and 

adapting them to the conditions in hand. The approach was developed in an attempt to “industrialise” 

comparisons of attractant controls by allowing the rapid, reliable, large-scale assessment of options, 

including mixtures and combinations, with as little use of time and resources as possible, using a 

hierarchy to allow only the most promising candidates to progress from one step to the next. The first 

two steps make use of the fact that attractants are applied in discrete “killing points” of bait spots, 

blocks or traps and so the relative effectiveness of these (if not their actual crop protection costeffectiveness) 

may be evaluated by counting the flies attracted to, and killed by, points of different 

types. First, laboratory single-killing-point (SKP) studies will evaluate the relative attractant power of 

two killing points deployed at either end of a long choice-chamber cage into which flies are released on 

the centre line equidistant between the two candidate treatments. Data are counts of dead flies 

gathered on either side of the centre line. Second, field SKP studies, one step more realistic and 

resource-consuming, will deploy real killing points in actual field or orchard conditions, and count the 

flies falling killed from these into specially designed collectors; the measurement of the distance 

13

travelled by dying flies will allow the calculation of the parameters of the curve of the decay of 

catches with distance, and thus the modelling of likely fall of dead flies outside the confines of the 

collecting surface itself. Third and finally, the most promising methods identified by SKP studies will be 

evaluated in full on-farm trials in which the controls deployed are exactly as envisaged for farm use, 

and the infestation and loss of fruit in farm plots treated in different ways are quantified to allow the 

actual economic losses in each to be set against the likely costs of candidate controls. As evaluated on 

actual farms, these will also allow interviews with farmers to elicit their opinions of the advantages and 

disadvantages of the controls evaluated. 

The objective is a systematic and comprehensive evaluation of all candidate attractants and their 

accompanying lethal agents and deployment/application methods, individually and in combination, in 

order to identify the most cost-effective, making best use of locally-available and home-made 

components, of the many candidate controls individually assessed in the past in India and elsewhere. 

3: Village-Level Studies 

3.1: Institutional study of village-level organisation 

3.2: Village-level control trials 

3.3: Village participatory rural appraisal of trial outcome 

Together these will assess the economic returns to area-wide control at village level (for research 

purposes estimated at one square kilometre) in comparison with those of control at farm level, by the 

simultaneous assessment of fly infestation and economic damage with (a) no control, (b) farm-level 

control only, (c) village-level control only and (d) both farm- and village-level control, in a factorial 

design. This will be accompanied by a study of the institutions and organisations at village level which 

might be able to perform the essential task of co-ordinating cooperative village-level activities by 

farmers. The individual controls to be used will be determined by the results of the earlier farm-level 

control methods evaluated by activities under 2. Assessment of both the experimental results and the 

institutional infrastructure will be combined by the use of village-level Participatory Rural Appraisal , 

along with other techniques, which will address control results and organisational roles together, in a 

holistic assessment of how the technique, if valuable, may be made operational and sustainable at 

village level with both biological and socio-economic tools. 

The above workplan is intended to be carried out, at each of the participating research centres, by a 

suitable full-time Research Fellow with inputs of the time of other personnel as the relevant Managing 

Institution sees fit. It may be that at points in the research schedule the work load of each individual 

Research Fellow may permit additional studies to be undertaken and, as these may allow individuals 

opportunities to pursue particular and personal research, instead of all following the same procedures 

laid down by the work plan, this will be encouraged and funded if resources permit. Areas for study in 

these additional, personal research projects, if possible, will be decided between Imperial College and 

participating Institutions, but may include some of the following, which are areas where illumination 

would benefit the overall purposes of the proposed project: 

- cultural controls, including fruit disposal 

- integration of more than one control for IPM, such as by life table analysis or population modelling 

- food- and mate-seeking behaviour of fruit flies 

- migration and movement of fruit flies 

4: Closing workshop at IIHR, Bangalore. This workshop will review outputs of the research and 

confirm management plans for implementation by extension agencies (governmental and nongovernmental). 

20a. Logframe: 

14

Narrative Summary 

Goal Objectively Verifiable 

Indicators 

Volume, quality and seasonal 

availability of food and crop 

products improved through the 

reduction of economic and 

physical losses caused by 

pests. 

Improvements in farm 

incomes, welfare and 

nutrition; reduction in 

purchase and application of 

cover spray pesticides, and 

of undesirable side-effects of 

pesticide use. 

Purpose Objectively Verifiable 

Indicators 

Improved methods for the 

control of insect pests in 

market gardening and 

horticulture enterprises 

developed and promoted. 

Improved pest management 

methods are presented in 

workshops, publications and 

extension materials; lures and 

formulations are in the 

market; cooperative groups 

are formed to apply areawide 

controls. 

Outputs Objectively Verifiable 

Indicators 

1. Quantification of losses 

caused by flies, by crops and 

social groups, and constraints 

to management improvement. 

2. Identification and 

optimisation of effective, 

profitable, practical and 

sustainable technologies for fly 

control at farm level. 

3. Identification and 

optimisation of effective, 

profitable, practical and 

sustainable technologies for fly 

control at village level. 

4. Development of management 

plans. 

1. Published reports of 

losses caused by flies to 

crops and social groups, and 

constraints to management 

improvement. 

2. Technologies listed and 

evaluated for efficacy 

(capacity to kill flies) 

effectiveness (capacity to do 

so to optimise returns to 

farmers), practicality 

(realistic usefulness to 

farmers) and sustainability. 

3. Reports on village-level 

control strategies. 

4. Management plans 

presented in reports. 

15 

Means of Verification Important Assumptions 

Production and infestation 

statistics for the volume, 

quality and seasonal 

availability host foods; 

availability of merchandise 

credibly sold as “organic”; 

reports of control use, farmer 

welfare, income and nutrition; 

incidence statistics of 

pesticide sales, use and 

contamination (poisonings). 

Methods are adopted, 

effective, and remain so in the 

future, leading to 

sustainability in use both in 

control and in use by farmers. 


Use by farmers of new 

technologies; development of 

institutional infrastructure 

and adoption by NGOs, 

agencies, organisations etc of 

improved control method. 

Research results and outputs 

are capable of translation into 

recommendations genuinely 

useful and attractive to 

farmers; institutions are 

capable of translating 

recommendations into farmer 

adoption. 


1. Report and published 

paper containing structured 

tabulations of economic fly 

losses, by: area; host; fly 

species; farm size;also 

qualitative discussion of 

constraints and 

circumstances. 

2. Report and published 

paper delineating evaluation 

of technologies, including 

evaluation in the field and at 

farm level. 

3. Reports and published 

papers. 

4. Reports and published 

papers. 

1. Satisfactory information 

can be obtained, within 

acceptable margins of error. 

2. Successful experiments; 

access to adequate material 

resources for laboratory, field 

and farm trials, including to 

farms and farmers for 

evaluation of results. 

3. Successful experiments; 

access to adequate resources 

for village trials, including to 

village families and groups for 

evaluation. 

4. Information and insights 

yielded by 1 to 3 are adequate 

for development of plans.

Activities Inputs Means of Verification Important Assumptions 

1.1 Knowledge review. 

1.2 Survey of incidence, 

infestation, losses and 

constraints. 

1.3 Opening workshop. 

2.1 Laboratory Single Killing 

Point (SKP) studies. 

2.2 Field SKP studies. 

2.3 On-Farm trials. 

3.1 Study of village-level 

institutions 

3.2. Village-level trials 

3.3. Village PRA 

1.1 Salaried and supervised 

researcher; travel 

budget. 

1.2 Trap, rearing and 

interview survey at 

eight locations. 

1.3 Workshop in New 

Delhi. 

2.1. Attractant killing 

assessments in wood 

laboratory cages at eight 

locations. 

2.2. Attractant killing 

assessments in fields in eight 

locations. 

2.3. On-Farm trials in eight 

locations. 

3.1. Output of study of 

village-level institutions. 

3.2. Trial results. 

3.3. PRA results. 

16 

1.1 Tabulated outputs. 


infestation and losses. 

1.3 Opening workshop in 

New Delhi. 

2.1. Laboratory SKP studies 

undertaken and written up. 

2.2. Field SKP studies 

undertaken and written up. 

2.3. On-Farm trials performed 

and written up. 

3.1. Study report. 

3.2. Trial report. 

3.3. PRA report. 

1.1 Access to libraries and 

respondents. 


infestation and losses. 

1.3 Workshop can be 

mounted, with access 

and accommodation for 

invitees. 

2.1. Laboratory fly cultures 

maintained; non-biased and 

reliable choice chambers 

established; clear results 

obtained. 

2.2. Suitable field sites; 

adequate weather and field fly 

populations; clear results 

obtained. 

2.3. Access to farm sites 

(permission, cooperation, 

organisation, transport); 

adequate weather and field fly 

populations; low mortality in 

rearing rooms; results 

obtained. 

3.1. Access; communications. 

3.2. Trials can be organised; 

participation and cooperation. 

3.3. Participants accessible 

and willing; results of 

sufficient interest to 

participants. 

4. Closing workshop. 4. Workshop in Bangalore. 4. Workshop report. 4. Participants available; 

outputs presented and 

synthesised. 

20b. Activity chart over the life of the project 

YEAR 1 2001-2002 MONTH 

Activity A M J J A S O N D J F M 

1.1. Knowledge review X X X 

1.2. Survey of incidence, infestation, losses and constraints X X X 

1.3. Opening workshop X 

2.1. Laboratory SKP studies X X X 

2.2. Field SKP studies X 

2.3. On-farm trials 

3.1. Village institution study 

3.2. Village-level trials 


4. Closing workshop 

Overseas travel 

To By A M J J A S O N D J F M 

India (Research sites) Stonehouse X X X X 

India (ICAR, New Delhi) Mumford X

YEAR 2 2002-2003 MONTH 


1.1. Knowledge review X X X X X X 

1.2. Survey of incidence, infestation, losses and constraints X X X X X X X X X X X X 

1.3. Opening workshop 

2.1. Laboratory SKP studies X X X X X X X X X X X 

2.2. Field SKP studies X X X X X X X X X X X 

2.3. On-farm trials X X X X X X X X X X X X 

3.1. Village institution study X X 

3.2. Village-level trials X X 


4. Closing workshop 



South Africa (Symposium) Stonehouse X 

South Africa (Symposium; from India) Verghese X 

India (Research sites) Stonehouse X X X 

YEAR 3 2003-2004 MONTH 


1.1. Knowledge review 

1.2. Survey of incidence, infestation, losses and constraints X X X X X X X X X 

1.3. Opening workshop 

2.1. Laboratory SKP studies 

2.2. Field SKP studies 

2.3. On-farm trials 

3.1. Village institution study 

3.2. Village-level trials X X X X X X X X X X 

3.3. Village PRA X X 

4. Closing workshop X 



India (Research Sites) Stonehouse X X 

India (ICAR, New Delhi; IIHR, Bangalore) Mumford X 

17

Appendix I. The Fruit Fly Problem in India 

The Importance of Fruit Fly Hosts 

India is the world’s largest tropical and subtropical fruit producer. Yet yields are low and there 

is potential for gains. Table I.1 gives some recent estimates of production of tree fruit in India. It can 

be seen that recent growth in production has been limited, to 3.27% the past five years. 

Table I.1. Indian fruit production in annual millions of tonnes (‘000 000MT) (FAO (2000). 

Year Mango Citrus Others 

2000 12 3.19 23.37 

1999 12 3.19 23.37 

1998 12 3.19 23.37 

1997 12 3.19 23.34 

1996 12 3.17 22.17 

Segrè et al. (1998) found most Asian countries’ exports low in comparison with South 

America, when compared with corresponding production levels; though a major exporter of banana, 

mango, guava and papaya, the potential for India as a major fruit exporter remains to be further 

developed, particularly considering its proximity to the major South-West Asian market (the largest 

importing regional bloc in the developing world, with 34% of the total in 1995). India is the world’s 

largest mango producer, with 65% of global production, and the mango export industry is a priority 

area. Tree fruits are valuable sources of nutrition and vitamins at a time of growing awareness of their 

importance. Beyond the economic figures is the role of fruit fly hosts in rural nutrition, as borderlinesubsistence 

poverty continues to decline in India - the 2001 88 th Indian Science Congress had as its 

themes Food, Nutrition and Environmental Security. They are also largely beneficial from 

environmental aspects, protecting soil from water, wind and tillage erosion and, for example, sheltering 

birds which may eat other insect pests, such as up to 65% of white grubs while following the plough in 

nearby fields (GAU, pers. comm.). 

Several fly hosts are of great importance for the poor and vulnerable. Guava is called “the 

poor man’s fruit” because of its poor keeping qualities and inability to ripen after harvest, which make 

it unsuitable for harvesting green to ripen in transit to market, and it is widely the preserve of small and 

local producers. It is an indication of its small and local scale of production that it is not considered a 

suitable crop for commercialisation. Jujube is also called “the poor man’s fruit” in north Gujarat 

because of its tolerance of dry conditions, allowing it often to be the only productive plant which can be 

grown on what is often “waste ground”. Sapota is widely grown in Gujarat, and in Karnataka is 

sometimes valued by smallholders even more than mango, in spite of its poor-quality timber, because 

its production is high (up to 100-300kg/tree/year) and its fruiting season long (Bostock Wood and Wise, 

1992) - though this allows fruit fly populations to build up. 

Fly Infestation 

Fruit flies are probably the most serious cause of pest losses to many tree fruits and most 

cucurbits. The melon fly has long been considered the most serious pest of cucurbits in Kerala (Dale 

et al., 1966). This preliminary study followed earlier studies in Pakistan and Seychelles (Stonehouse et 

al., 1998, 2001) in listing all available estimates of losses, and deriving from the lists subjective 

estimates of likely average infestation overall. Estimates of losses are collected in Table I.4, and the 

subjective estimates, from the limited study at this point, summarised in Table I.2. 

18

Table I.2. Subjectively-derived synthesis estimates of percentage losses to fruit flies, with 

and without controls, from the currently incomplete survey of sources presented in Table 

I.4. (Moringa fruit fly losses are included although this species is a Drosophilid, not 

Tephritid, pest). 

Host Untreated Treated 

Gourds (various) 40 5 

Cucumber 35 5 

Melon 40 10 

Moringa 30 5 

Mango 20 3 

Sapota 30 5 

Phalsa 50 10 

Jujube 30 3 

Guava (summer) 40 10 

Economic Losses 

The synthesis of production data and loss estimates allow a preliminary attempt at 

quantification of economic losses. This is given for some of the most important tree fruit in Table I.3. 

Table I.3. Production, loss and cost estimates for fruit flies in India for selected tree fruits 

for 1999. Production statistics are from Negi et al. (2000a). Price statistics are from Negi et 

al. (2000b), as wholesale prices, averaged over the major markets (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, 

Chennai, Bangalore) weighted for tonnage marketed annually (except guava, estimated by 

the author). Percentage loss estimates are from Table I.4, except those for citrus, taken 

from Pakistan estimates by Stonehouse et al. (1998). Assumed exchange rate is 

Rs68=GB£1. Estimated annual loss totals, for these four fruits, were Rs 29460 million or 

£433 million. 

Value (1999) Mango Citrus Guava Sapota Totals 

Production ('000MT) 9782 3707 1801 668 15958 

Price (Rs 000/MT) 12.7 13.8 9.5 10.1 

Value (Rs million) 124231 51156.6 17109.5 6746.8 199244 

Value (£ million) 1827 752 251 99 2930 

Loss- untreated (%) 20 15 40 30 

Loss - treated (%) 3 3 10 5 

Treated area (%) 35 35 35 35 

Loss - untreated (Rs million) 16150 4988 4448 1316 26902 

Loss - treated (Rs million) 1304 537 599 118 2558 

Loss - total (Rs million) 17454 5525 5047 1434 29460 

Loss - total (£ million) 257 81 74 21 433 

It can be seen from the sketchy nature of the above analysis that many figures are unknown – 

particularly in host production, pest infestation and the level of practice of controls. The project’s 

“Survey” component aims to address this. 

Further Significance 

Beyond these cash estimates are further aspects of importance: the very crops for which 

production statistics do not exist are, because of their small-scale nature and small commercial 

potential, of greatest significance for the poorest farmers, and for small farmers, the greatest fly 

damage may be to cucurbits, attacked by B. cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus. Anecdotal evidence 

suggests that many small subsistence growers of staple crops such as rice and cereals, in a potential 

19

position to move up to the cultivation of cucurbits for market, are prevented from doing so by pests, 

often mainly fruit flies, and so their control, particularly by cheap methods needing no access to capital 

goods such as sprayers, may offer significant improvements in living standards. 

Finally, as the subjects of many detailed studies in the past, fruit flies represent a case of a 

pest where much biological information exists, including on the effectiveness of farm-level controls, but 

their control in India is largely either absent or by insecticide cover sprays: there seems to be a need 

for both an integration of information to allow the selection of the economically optimum control 

technique in every case, and also of the incorporation of knowledge into a social and economic 

framework to ensure control technologies are workable by, and valuable to, farmers. Addressing this 

may form to some extent a test or pilot study of how effective control technology may be taken up, in 

a case where there already exists a suite of different control technologies with different attributes. 

There are particular opportunities for controls based on information rather than products - thresholds, 

IPM, and wide-area social controls by farmers cooperating. Overall, the control of Tephritids is quite 

well understood (though not optimised for all available options), and proven effective technologies are 

known, so that the question is one of understanding which technology or strategy is best for farmers in 

any particular case, and of how they can be made workable by farmers. Additionally, fruit fly control is 

patently not a “lost cause” where scheduled cover sprays are the only option which farmers will trust 

to protect crops - methyl eugenol, which has no purpose other than low-pesticide Tephritid control, is 

widely available, and sold, in India. Overall, India with its traditions of non-violence and harmony with 

nature has favoured agriculture with conceptual characteristics such as Swadeshi (indigenous), 

Swaavalambi (self-reliant) and Savayava (organic) (anon., 1999). Synthetic chemicals are generally 

frowned on, many NGOs fostering organic farming, with a growing urban market for organic produce. 

This provides a promising base for the development of minimum-pollution IPM with minimal cover 

pesticide use. It is thus in a way an opportunity to scrutinise the paradigm of technology transfer: 

simple technologies can and do work, and in their effective deployment and extension a little 

knowledge goes a long way. 

Table I.4. Tabulation of records of losses to fruit flies in India. This preliminary table of 

losses repe ats the estimate processes carried out for The Seychelles and Pakistan 

(Stonehouse et al., 1998, 2001). India’s size and ecogeographic variety will necessitate a 

process of zoning. Data are from a literature search (cited as text references) and small Key 

Informant survey (cited as personal communications). At writing, the documentation 

searched is incomplete and many found only as abstracts; the following are from a search of 

the internet and the CABI pest management abstracts CD for 1990-2001. The table shows 

records of losses as percentages (“Loss %”), with months where given (as roman numerals 

from i=January), existence and nature of protection (“P” - as N=none, R=resistance, 

S=cover sprays, M=MAT, B=BAT, I=IPM), together with their locations and source. 

Expressions such as “up to” or “at least” are coded by, respectively, =. At the end 

of each host section is the subjectively-derived estimate for use overall (temporarily 

disregarding zoning requirements) called “Used” and for “All” locations, with estimates 

given, respectively, for Untreated and Treated areas, i.e. subjective overall estimates for 

jujube of “30/3" are of 30% for untreated and 3% for treated crops. This is a first step, and 

it is proposed to develop it into a more comprehensive data-base-based synthesis to include 

crop, variety, fly species, control, month(s) and year(s) and the location converted to latitude 

and longitude coordinates (with altitude) and to a standard system of ecogeographical 

zoning. Moringa fruit fly losses are included although this species is a Drosophilid, not 

Tephritid, pest. 

Part i: Tree Fruit 

Host Loss % months P Location Source 

Jujube 47 - N Bawal Dashad et al. (1999b) 

Jujube 13 - R Rajasthan Faroda (1996) 

Jujube 1-10 - R Delhi Sharma et al. (1998) 

20

Jujube 3 - S Bawal Dashad et al. (1999b) 

Jujube >=50 - N Delhi Sharma et al. (1998) 

Jujube 72 i N Bawal Dashad et al. (1999a) 

Jujube 11-30 - N/R Delhi Sharma et al. (1998) 

Jujube >=20 xi,xii N Gujarat Bagle (1992) 

Jujube 40 - R Punjab Arora et al. (1999) 

Jujube 13 xi N Bawal Dashad et al. (1999a) 

Jujube 33 - R Punjab Arora et al. (1999) 

Jujube

Part ii: Cucurbits 

Melon 51-75 - R Rajasthan Pareek & Kavadia (1995) 

Melon 76-100 - N Rajasthan Pareek & Kavadia (1995) 

Melon 40/10 Used N/T All 

Bitter gourd 60 viii,ix N H. Pradesh Gupta et al. (1992) 

Bitter gourd 47 - N Kerala Dale & Jiji (1997) 

Bitter gourd 40/5 Used N/T All 

Bottle gourd 80 vii,viii N H. Pradesh Gupta et al. (1992) 

Bottle gourd 40/5 Used N/T All 

Cucumber 20 x-iii N Assam Borah (1996) 

Cucumber 80 vii,viii N H. Pradesh Gupta et al. (1992) 

Cucumber 28 iii-vi N Assam Borah (1996) 

Cucumber 39 vi-x N Assam Borah (1996) 

Cucumber 53 - N Karnataka IIHR pers. comm. 

Cucumber 21 - S Karnataka IIHR pers. comm. 

Cucumber 2 - M Bangladesh Nasir Uddin et al. (2000c) 

Cucumber 13 - B Bangladesh Nasir Uddin et al. (2000c) 

Cucumber 22 - N Bangladesh Nasir Uddin et al. (2000c) 

Cucumber 35/5 Used N/T All 

Little gourd

Appendix II. Scientific Research on Fruit Flies in India 

Summary 

Much is known about the taxonomy, biology, damage and management of Tephritids in India, 

and over 100 papers have been published in the last decade. Three areas can be identified where there 

remains a requirement for further studies:- 

1 - A synthetic study to bring together in a standardised and comparative assessment the effectiveness 

of food baits and parapheromone lures, alone and in different combinations, for optimum cost-effective 

on-farm control, and whether and how the optimum may differ between fly species, areas and crops. 

2 - Social and economic studies of the real and actual usefulness of control recommendations to 

farmers. 

3 - Evaluation of the advantages accrued by wide-area controls, in terms of cost-effective benefits 

from farm cooperation to gain scale-economies of control. 

Incidence and Infestation 

Fruit flies have been recorded as pests in India since the nineteenth century (Maxwell-Lefroy, 

1905) and much is known about their incidence and distribution throughout South Asia (Kapoor, 1989, 

1993; Kapoor et al., 1976, 1977; Agarwal, 1984, 1985, 1987; Agarwal and Kapoor, 1985, 1986, 1988). 

Trap catches have been particularly widely studied and documented, and vary between zones, 

predominant hosts and fly species (Gupta et al., 1992; Murthy and Regupathy, 1992; Mann, 1996; Patil 

et al., 1996; Kumar et al., 1997; Verghese, 1998; Agarwal and Kumar, 1999). However, while trap 

catches well indicate fluctuations of a single species in time such as seasonally or annually, they poorly 

represent actual infestation losses, due to the extreme differential susceptibility of different species to 

different lures, with some being attracted to none. Also, trap catches often correlate poorly with 

infestation level at field level (Nasir Uddin et al., 2000b, Stonehouse et al., in prep.), perhaps because 

lure traps attract males from great distances, as can be shown by trap catches in fields empty of hosts, 

implying attraction from outside the farm (Nasir Uddin et al., 2000d). As a result, the relative role of 

various species in economic damage is less well understood than their geographical distribution. 

Biology and Pest Status 

The main pests such as Bactrocera dorsalis, zonata and cucurbitae are well-studied. 

Shukla and Prasad (1985) found that the key determinants of fly abundance were (1) host availability 

(2) median temperature and (3) relative humidity. Similar studies have allowed the development of 

ecological models, allowing accuracy in prediction of up to 74% for the judicious deployment of 

controls (Verghese, 1998). 

The study of the developmental biology, ecology and host preferences of fly species have shed 

light on their propensity to cause damage to different crops. Infestation rates, and therefore crop 

losses, as introduction risks as well as field estimates, may be illuminated by comparative assays of the 

success of species in hosts, such as in speed of development or percentage survival, when reared in 

the laboratory. For example, Dacus ciliatus in Gujarat is most severe in little gourd (GAU, 

pers.comm.) and in laboratory choice experiments it also preferred little gourd to, in order, cucumber 

and bitter, bottle, smooth and ridge gourds (Patel and Patel, 1998c); it also developed in little gourd 

faster than five other cucurbits (Patel 1994). Similarly, Gupta and Verma (1995) found that melon fly 

both had lower survival and slower development on sponge gourd than on bitter gourd and cucumber. 

Table II.1 shows some “growth indices” for laboratory cultures in India. 

23

Table II.1. Growth indices (percentage survival from first larva to adult, divided by the 

number of days elapsed for the same development) for various Bactrocera fruit flies on 

various hosts (dorsalis data from Kumar and Agarwal 1998b; zonata data from Rahman et al., 

1993; cucurbitae data from Agarwal and Yazdani, 1991). Note the low scores on orange, 

possibly indicating a potential niche for Ceratitis. 

Bactrocera 

Host Dorsalis Zonata cucurbitae 

Mango 4.54 6.54 

Orange 3.42 4.46 

Papaya 4.84 

Guava 3.58 

Sapota 4.70 

Smooth gourd 5.28 6.33 

Long melon 6.48 

Cucumber 6.74 

Bottle gourd 4.79 

Bitter gourd 5.96 

Pointed gourd 6.51 

The validity of such exercises depends on several assumptions such as the general association 

between percentage survival and life-cycle duration for a given species on a range of hosts. Although 

the studies cited above suggest an association, Table II.2 suggests a poor such correlation between 

four varieties of mango. Laboratory studies seem to give coherent pointers to field attack severity, but 

the association cannot be taken as perfect. 

Table II.2. Rank ordering of four mango varieties in five parameters affecting life cycle of B. 

dorsalis (Kalia and Srivastava, 1992a,b). 

Variety Bangalora Malika Dashehari Amrapali 

Oviposition preference 1 2 3 4 

Number of oviposition punctures 1 2 3 4 

Number of eggs per puncture 1 2 3 4 

Life cycle speed 3 1 4 2 

Percentage survival 1 2= 2= 4 

Early attack in field - 1 - 2 

Other basic biological information may be used to inform estimates of the relative and absolute 

gravity of various pest species in various climatic zones and seasons - many good studies have 

examined the basic biology of the key species such as Bactrocera dorsalis (Kumar and Agarwal, 

1998c), B. zonata (Rana et al., 1992; Rahman et al., 1993) and B. cucurbitae (Koul and Bhagat, 

1994a&b) including often finding a high correlation of abundance with temperature, allowing estimates 

to be made of relative abundance in various zones and seasons (Patel and Patel, 1995, 1996, 1998; 

Agarwal and Kumar, 1999). Temperature and diet effects have also been examined for Carpomyia 

vesuviana (Dashad et al., 1999a; Sangwan and Lakra, 1992) and Gitona (Murthy and Regupathy, 

1992). 

Additional to the major pests are some minority species or those currently affecting only 

minority crops. In Bihar Bactrocera latifrons is found in solanaceae such as Solanum melongena 

(Agarwal, 1984) and, though currently only abundant in wild, marginal and medicinal species, has been 

found in tomatoes (Rajendra Agricultural University, pers.comm.). B. cucurbitae is capable of 

infesting brinjal, as may be seen from several specimens in the National Insect Collection at the Pusa 

Institute in New Delhi, reared from brinjal in 1907. Similarly, the Gujarat Agricultural University 

24

Museum has B. dorsalis specimens reared from banana in 1969, which apparently persists, although 

not a commercial problem as they are killed before emergence by the heat treatment widely used to 

control banana ripening (Gijarat Agriculture University, pers. comm.). Bactrocera correcta has been 

found in grapes (Mani, 1992) and carambola fly in papaya (Rangona et al., 1997) 

Very few crops are attacked by only one pest, and so pest management decisions are only 

very rarely applied to a single target in isolation. Around the country mango has many pests - the stone 

weevil Sternochetus mangiferae Fabricius may cause infestation of 17.5% in Alphonso and 13.4% in 

Banganapalli varieties, but may be controlled by 97.5% by one cover spray at the marble stage, but this 

is not a stage where fruit fly controls are normally needed. The mango shoot borer Chlumetia 

transversa Wlk can cause up to 40% damage, and mites and grey and leaf-cutting weevils also can 

feature in some cases. 

Table II.3 shows losses to the two major pests of jujube in Gujarat. Bagle (1995-8) found that 

both pests may be controlled together, by two sprays of synthetic chemicals, in early October and 15 

days later, alternating with neem sprays (neem alone is inadequate). This seems a case where 

switching fruit fly control away from cover sprays would serve little purpose, as the sprays have to be 

made anyway, to control the borer, and will continue to control flies at the same time, although other 

sources indicate that the fly and borer only rarely attack together and may be better controlled 

individually (Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, pers. comm.). 

Table II.3. Losses of jujube to fruit fly Carpomyia vesuviana and fruit borer Meridarchis 

scyrodes Meyr over three years in Gujarat (Bagle 1996-8). Percentage infestations are in 

samples taken after treatments; infestation percentages at harvest were similar to the 

samples for fruit flies but less for fruit borer. 

Pest C. vesuviana M. scyrodes 

Control None Sprays None Sprays 

1996 19 7 40 8 

1997 15.1 6.4 13.5 5.2 

1998 27 13 50 30 

Mean 20.4 8.8 34.5 14.4 

Controls 

Farmer responses to fly pests may comprise nothing, cover sprays, bait sprays, lures, or some 

form of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Many different control options have been evaluated 

and/or recommended, ranging from cover sprays to cultural controls such as fallen-fruit collection to 

locally-derived lures and baits such as basil, fruit juice, ammonia, jaggery and molasses, often 

fermented. 

Insecticide As cover sprays and as ingredients in other controls, there are many lethal elements used 

against fruit flies, including synthetic chemicals, neem, other botanicals and pathogens. Many good 

studies already exist of the toxicity of insecticides to fruit flies in South Asia. Full toxicity comparisons 

for all species may not exist, however. 

Cover sprays, while considered by IPM practitioners the last resort, can and do control flies 

when applied in a position to do so, controlling Carpomyia vesuviana on jujube (Lakra et al., 1991; 

Bagle, 1992; Saravaiya et al., 1998; Dashad et al., 1999b), moringa fly (Logiswaran, 1993), 

Bactrocera dorsalis on guava (Mann, 1996) and Bactrocera cucurbitae on bitter gourd (Reddy, 

1997). Other studies have concluded that cover sprays obtain only poor control of B. cucurbitae 

(National Centre for IPM, pers.comm.). 

Bait sprays have requirements not necessarily the same as for cover sprays. Shukla et al. 

(1984) found cover sprays of deltamethrin reduced mango loss from 28.725% (untreated) to 2.875% 

(with fenthion) and 1.814% (with the more expensive deltamethrin). In using bait sprays against melon 

fly, Dale and Nair (1966) found that of the six insecticides evaluated all obtained 100% mortality on the 

25

first day after application, and none more than 20% after ten days, but that some were superior at 

intermediate times - at day three malation obtained over 80%, dipterex and parathion about 70%, and 

sevin, BHC and DDT all less than 60%. In Pakistan, Farooq (unpub.) found dipterex best for cover 

spray control of melon fly, attributing this to a slight attractant property, while studies in India found 

that in bait sprays, while better than cypermethrin (which is slightly repellent) dipterex was less 

effective than dichlorphos because the former, as stomach-acting, is slower in lethal infect than the 

contact-action of the latter (Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, pers. comm.). 

Botanical and non-conventional pesticides are widely favoured by farmers and consumers, as 

(often) cheap or home-cultivable, less damaging to the environment and health of people and domestic 

and beneficial organisms, and increasingly allowing certifiably “organic” cultivation with a large price 

premium in discerning markets. A survey of organic bait and lure controls, largely from unpublished 

sources, recommends tobacco and pyrethrum as lethal components (Stoll, 2000). Neem is widely used 

and recommended in India - the plant grows easily along hedgerows and its properties are widely 

known by farmers and extended by NGOs and extensionists. It has been successfully used against 

pests of Cruciferae (Krishna Moorthy et al., 1998, 2000), Jassids and other sucking pests attacking the 

early stages of bitter gourd (Soman et al., 1999) and produced successful fruit fly protection in guava, 

jujube and cucurbits, as shown in Table II.4. It may not be a panacea, however. A farmer in Bihar 

reported a small-scale student trial where neem control was inferior to that of synthetic chemicals, and 

an apparent fertiliser effect deleteriously stimulated weed growth in neem-treated plots. It has also 

been reported that neem’s disagreeable smell may discourage consumers - though perhaps not 

seriously when set against synthetic chemicals and their need for preharvest intervals, which are of 

growing concern among Indian consumers and farmers. Table II.4 also shows a less successful trial 

outcome. The different outcomes of these trials offer many interpretations, perhaps because the fly 

species and neem plant part and preparation may make considerable differences. 

Table II.4. Percentage infestation of cucumbers by Bactocera cucurbitae with different cover 

treatments (data from provisional experiments by IIHR) and of little gourd by Dacus ciliatus 

with different cover treatments (Patel, 1994, mean of two seasons’ data). 

B cucurbitae on cucumber D ciliatus on little gourd 

Insecticide Infestation Insecticide Infestation 

None 53 None 13 

Neem cake 1 6 Fenthion 0.05 4 

Neem kernel extract 2 9 Carbaryl 0.2 4 

Pon cake 3 21 Endosulfan 0.07 8 

Carbaryl 21 Monocrotofos 0.04 9 

Nuvacron 21 Dichlorvos 0.05 7 

Dimacron 23 Deltamethrin 0.001 7 

Metacid 24 Triazophos 0.04 9 

Neemark 4 0.3 11 

1 - Dry neem cake after crushing for the extraction of oil, crumbled into the soil around the base of plants and covered with 

soil. 

2 - 75g of crushed kernel, soaked overnight in 1l water and filtered. 

3 - Extract of Pongamia glabra, a local insecticidal plant. 

4 - Commercial neem extract 

Much farm-level fruit fly control depends on the attraction of flies to baits and lures, and 

another question is whether neem, which has a slight repellent as well as insecticidal effect, may work 

as the killing ingredient in these, or may repel flies and thus undermine attraction and mortality. Table 

II.5 shows how on at least one fruit fly its effect as an oviposition deterrent is greater than as an 

insecticide. At first glance it would therefore appear unsuitable, but this has never been actually tested, 

26

and if neem can be used in attractant preparations this may offer the possibility of all-home-made 

controls. 

Table II.5. Effect of neem (Nimbecidine 0.03%) on different life table parameters of the 

Moringa fruit fly, Gitona distigma Meigon (Diptera: Drosopholidae), in comparison with no 

treatment, and percentage reduction attributable to neem (Ragumoorthi and Rao, 1998). 

Parameter Neem Nothing % reduction 

Fecundity (Eggs/female) 50.25 62.75 19.92 

Oviposition (Eggs/female) 15.33 54.67 71.96 

Eggs hatching (%) 57.25 69.75 17.92 

Larval survival (%) 81.25 89.00 8.71 

Adult emergence (%) 71.25 85.50 16.67 

Adult longevity (days) 11.00 23.30 52.79 

A further option may be the use of pathogens as insecticides. Sinha and Saxena (1999) found 

that culture filtrates of Rhizoctonia solani, Trichoderma viride and Gliocladium virens adversely 

affected the oviposition and development of Bactrocera cucurbitae. 

Soil applications for fly control have also been evaluated. Dale et al. (1966) found aldrin and 

heptachlor killed 100% of melon fly pupae after one day, and 20-40% after 42 days, although all others 

tested killed only 90% at day one and one after 42. Soil applications, however, seem unlikely to be an 

economically viable tool, unless also benefiting from hitting another pest at the same time. They also 

may require economies of scale, as areas cleared by larval or pupal control are prone to reinvasion 

from outside (see below). 

Bait A wide variety of different bait preparations has been recommended and/or used in India over 

many years, including protein hydrolysate (Gupta and Verma, 1982; also used against fruit-sucking 

moths in Uttar Pradesh), brewer’s yeast (Singh, 1997; available in Indian shops as “active dried 

yeast”), jaggery, molasses, toddy and fruit juice and pulp. A widespread continuing recommendation 

(e.g. Srinavasan, 1993) is for 1% yeast protein and 1% sugar, which is apparently unchanged from an 

original recommendation (for 3/4oz each of yeast and brown sugar in 1 gallon of water) from 1958 

(Singh, 1990). Alternative ingredients include other yeasts, meat and fish extracts (fishmeal bait is used 

against the sorghum shoot fly in Gujarat, one of India’s most vegetarian states) and various fermented 

preparations. A DFID project in Pakistan evaluated meat baits (Zia et al., 2001; Stonehouse et al., in 

press and in prep.) but these are considered unacceptable for the large population of vegetarian 

farmers and consumers. In a review of la rgely unpublished sources from around the world Stoll (2000) 

lists in addition baits of (all in 1 litre of water): 

- ½ cup of urine, 1.5 teaspoons of vanilla essence and 100g sugar 

- peel or pulp of oranges or cucumber with 7.5ml of ammonia or urine 

- 0.1 cups of honey, 0.1 teaspoons of vanilla essence and 0.1 cups of cucumber or fruit pulp 

- 6ml of Marmite or Vegemite with 0.5g sodium sulphide (Na2S) 

- “juice mixed with sugar which will ferment” 

- 0.5l of vinegar and 10 tablespoons of honey (Richardson, 2000) 

In general, baits containing protein have been more effective than those containing sugar. 

Table II.6 shows the outcome of a comparative study in India showing protein preferred to fruit and 

sugar preparations by both Bactrocera dorsalis and B. zonata. 

27

Table II.6. Average numbers of Bactrocera fruit flies caught per trap (N=3) by four traps 

with food baits between May and August 1997. B. dorsalis data from Kumar and Agarwal 

(1998); B. zonata data from Agarwal and Kumar (1999). There were significant differences 

between species caught (F=1851[1,16]***) and treatments (F=527[3,16]***) and for 

interactions between them (F=202[3,16]***). 

Clove oil (2ml) + Malathion 50EC (1ml) +:- dorsalis zonata 

Protein hydrolysate (20g) 44 148 

Ripe mango pulp (20g) 28 132 

Fermented palm juice (20ml) 9 76 

Sugar (20g) 10 16 

Much of the Indian literature concerns baits rich in sugar. Among these the richer, more 

complex and organic preparations seem preferable to more refined simpler sugars. Thus Sasidharan et 

al. (1991) found plantain fruit superior to jaggery, honey and molasses. Altogether, there is a suspicion 

that baits may follow the this order of descending effectiveness:- 

1 - protein sources 

2 - natural fruit products 

3 - unrefined sugars such as jaggery or molasses 

4 - refined sugar 

Some evaluations and recommendations have been of bait applied as sprays (Gupta and 

Verma, 1982). Dale and Nair (1966) found application as coarse drops better than as fine. For tree 

fruit, Singh (1997) recommended application from 60 days before ripening of 20g of brewery waste 

suspended in 1l of water, hydrolysed by oven baking at 40 C for 48 hours, then mixed with 1ml of 

malathion, fenthion or chlorpyrifos, applied as squirts from 0.5l plastic bottles with a “delivery nozzle” 

to leaf undersurfaces or fences. In Kerala, Dale and Nair (1966) found application to leaf undersides 

gave best performance, and in Pakistan Zia et al. (2001) found brushes as good as sprayers, and 

foliage much superior to sawn timber, plastic sheet and cotton cloth. Others recommendations are as 

traps - dishes on bamboo poles (Nasir Uddin et al., 2000c) or hung from the pandal (Sasidharan et al., 

1991). In Bangladesh, traps against melon fly are loaded with 100g of sweet gourd and 6 drops of 

dichlorphos, at 50-60 per hectare and changed every three to five days (Bangladesh Agricultural 

Research Institute, pers. comm.). The review by Stoll (2000) includes five trap types of broadly similar 

design, made of old plastic bottles or coconut shells. One (from Paraguay) specifies that entry holes of 

0.5cm diameter permit the entry of flies but not of honeybees; although honeybees are not 

conventionally found in fruit fly traps, and traps are regularly checked for their presence, we know of 

at least one case, in Pakistan, where an unfounded rumour of bee casualties turned farmers against 

bait controls. It may be worthwhile thoroughly to compare the kill, duration and cost effectiveness of 

traps and spot sprays. 

Lure Methyl eugenol, the best-known parapheromone lure, is available and used over much of India. 

It is strongly attractive to males of Bactrocera dorsalis and zonata. Alternatives are available - holy 

basil (Ocimum sanctum, a known methyl eugenol analogue) is used in Kerala (as 20g of crushed 

leaves with 0.5g each of citric acid and of carbofuran 3G in 100ml of water, at four traps/ha; 

Reghunath and Indira, 2000) and in Gujarat (where it is known as tulsi and a sacred plant, and used in 

traps and also as live bushes sprayed with insecticide - a practice very different from more 

conventional traps in its demands for leaves, insecticide and labour, and thus whose relative 

effectiveness in comparison with these might be usefully examined). The attraction to methyl eugenol 

of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae, is uncertain, and the generally-used melon fly lure, Cue- 

Lure, is currently available in India only as research material, not commercially. A study by CIBC 

(1972) in Pakistan found catches of melon fly by Cue-Lure versus those by methyl eugenol were 

120:19 in the hills, 168:47 in the foothills and 149:0 at Lahore, but 23:72 on the plains and 0:22 on the 

28

coast. In the Faisalabad area attack on bitter gourd, presumably by B. cucurbitae, was reduced from 

66.33 to 21.33% by methyl eugenol traps at 8 per acre (Anon., 1988). 

Benzyl acetate attracts Bactrocera cucurbitae and dorsalis (Kapoor, 1993). Adult Dacus 

longistylus, apparently largely males, are attracted to the plant Calotropis gigantea (GAU, 

pers.comm.). No lure is known against Dacus ciliatus (Patel and Patel, 1998b; Qureshi et al., 1987, 

who found no response to seven known lures, three plant extracts, eight essential oils and two others), 

which also has shown only poor attraction to protein hydrolysate on St Helena (J Mumford, 

pers.comm.). There is concern at the occurrence in Pakistan of Myiopardelis pardalina, which 

appears indifferent to methyl eugenol, although it is found in traps containing cue-lure and gouminal. 

Some role in monitoring, if not control, may be played by coloured traps which mimic ripe fruit: 

Jalaluddin et al. (1998) found that B. correcta is more readily attracted to yellow and orange targets 

than to red, green, white, violet or blue. 

MAT has been successfully used for Tephritid control in South Asia in mango (Moyhuddin and 

Mahmood 1993; Mahmood et al., 2000) and in guava (Qureshi et al., 1981; Marwat et al., 1992; 

Entomologist, 1997 - the latter showing a net increase in farmer income of 58% from MAT use, 

although no improvement was demonstrated in persimmon or cucurbit fields). 

There is some isolated evidence of cue-lure serving for MAT control of B. cucurbitae. Table 

II.7 shows the results of a trial in Bangladesh. 

Table II.7. Comparative effectiveness of BAT and MAT trapping against B. cucurbitae in 

cucumber in Bangladesh (Nas ir Uddin et al., 2000c). Data are means of three replicates. 

Control Nothing Mashed pumpkin BAT Cue-lure MAT 

Percent infestation (%) 22 13 2 

Yield (kg/plot of 4m 2 150 230 260 

Apart from the nature of the attractant chemicals, the trap delivery system also affects the 

usefulness of lure-based killing points. Methyl eugenol or tulsi may be used in a variety of formulations 

such as plastic traps, with and without insecticide, and soaked-wood killer blocks; which of these are 

most cost-effective for farmers with different resource availabilities in terms of chemicals, traps and 

labour, would be a useful study. Indian researchers have developed effective research into, for 

example, “lobster-pot” methyl eugenol traps which trap and kill males without insecticide (Patel and 

Patel, 1995, 1996, 1998). There are also available commercially prepared blocks microformulated to 

release lure at a steady rate (Agrisense, pers.comm.) - these may use lure more cost-effectively than 

simpler preparations, but may be beyond the reach of all but the most sophisticated growers. To our 

knowledge, soaked-block trap MAT, which offers considerable advantages over all traps in terms of 

durability, efficiency and relative imperviousness to destruction by sunlight, wind, theft and mischief 

(Stonehouse, et al., in prep. 20001 a&b) has not been successfully evaluated in India. 

Mixtures Bait/bait mixtures are widely recommended, as in the prevalence of mixtures of more than 

one ingredient in the list of different bait recommendations given above, though the specific comparison 

of different quantities of different ingredient have not much been systematically researched in India or 

anywhere. Lure/lure mixtures have recently been compared with melon fly in Bangladesh: Table II.8 

shows an interesting hint that for the attraction of melon fly a combination of cuelure and methyl 

eugenol may show a positive interaction and be greater than the sum of its parts. 

29

Table II.8. Inferred table (the "absent;absent" cell was in fact untried so its "0" value is 

assumed) of catch of B. cucurbitae by cuelure, methyl eugenol and both together (all with 

Naled) in Bangladesh (Nasir Uddin et al., 2000a). 

Cue-lure 

Absent Present 

Methyl eugenol Absent (0) 171.7 

Present 17.5 268.5 

The record of lure/bait mixtures is patchy - in terms of the evolution of a pattern of responses 

to food and reproduction stimuli, there seems no prima facie reason why food and sex stimuli should 

benefit from each others’ presence. Table II.9 shows how methyl eugenol mixed with protein 

hydrolysate was less attractive than with mango pulp and sugar, to both species, but also that the two 

species significantly differed in their attractions. 

Table II.9. Average numbers of Bactrocera fruit flies caught per trap (N=3) by four traps 

with methyl eugenol between May and August 1997. B. dorsalis data from Kumar and 

Agarwal (1998); B. zonata data from Agarwal and Kumar (1999). There were significant 

differences between species caught (F=1426[1,16]***) and treatments (F=21[3,16]***) and 

for interactions between them (F=7[3,16]**). 

Methyl eugenol (2ml) + malathion 50EC (1ml) +:- dorsalis zonata 

Protein hydrolysate (20g) 821 2580 

Fermented palm juice (20ml) 1082 2394 

Sugar (20g) 970 2648 

Ripe mango pulp (20g) 1430 2797 

Another study of a mixture of bait with lure, over the months of a year, found its average 

catch of male B. zonata to be higher than that of the two components separately; however this was 

largely because of the much higher catch in the single heaviest month - in all other months of the year, 

and when the monthly catches were converted to logarithms, the catch of the two combined was less 

than that of its components (Agarwal et al., 1995). A study of attraction of C. capitata to trimedlure 

with and without protein found that the attraction of a mixture was less than that of lure alone for 

males, and less than that of bait alone for females, so that the total catch by the mixture was less than 

that by its two components separately (Stravens et al., 2001). 

Cultural Controls Cultural controls most effectively used are the ploughing and/or harrowing of soil 

to destroy pupae and the collection and destruction of fallen fruit. In general, in other areas, the 

difficulty with fruit collection is its destruction - burial must be to at least 15cm to prevent adult 

emergence (Patel, 1994). Burial to shallower depths may actually increase survival: Makhmoor and 

Singh (1999) found survival of Bactrocera cucurbitae pupae was 87% at 10cm depth, but only 7% on 

the surface. Gathered fruit will not immediately burn and cannot be easily composted. The practice 

needs precise tailoring to farmer resources and views - in Réunion fruit is sun-baked in plastic bags, 

whereafter it will burn (Jeffrault, 2001). It may be fed to animals, probably the most beneficial use if it 

may be made practical to farmers. An additional area of study may be the extent to which larval and 

pupal and controls depend on scale-economies - whether the complete extermination of larvae and 

pupae over an area of, say, 1/4 acre will offer economic protection if the area is prone to reinvasion 

from neighbouring fields, and thus whether coordination between farms significantly enhances the 

usefulness of the method. 

Other cultural controls may make small but useful differences. Host plant resistance is known 

for fruit flies, but is generally weak. Some resistance traits have been reported in jujube (Makhmoor 

and Singh, 1998; Sharma et al., 1998) and peach (Nijar et al., 1998) but overall strengths are only 

30

elative, and offer little real commercially resistance and are perhaps better termed “differential 

susceptibility” such as the different attack levels reported by several authors in bitter gourd (Tewatia 

and Dhankhar, 1996; Thakur et al., 1992, 1994a,b, 1996). Unfortunately, such resistance traits as are 

found tend (perhaps unsurprisingly) to be correlated negatively with traits making for attractive eating 

for humans, such as sugar content, pulp content, thin skin and other appetising characteristics (Arora et 

al., 1999; Kumar et al., 1994). Some authors have reported that sprays of giberellic acid and other 

physiologically active compounds enhance resistance in guava (Jalaluddin et al., 1998a,b) and mango 

(Kumar and Singh, 1993; Singh et al., 1995) but the use of these seems beyond the means of small 

farmers. 

The way that cucurbit vines are trailed may affect attack (Joshi et al., 1995). Trap crops have 

been successfully developed for pests of Cruciferae (IIHR, undated a,b) but none are known for fruit 

flies. In Pakistan, Khan et al. (1992) found that cultural methods effectively controlled melon flies. In 

their trial of various techniques the best economic cost:benefit ratios were 1:9 for ash dusting, 1:7.9 for 

intercropped squashmelon as a trap crop and 1:2.7 for poisoned cut-melon baits. This is a curious result 

and not to our knowledge repeated. 

Biological Control Most studies have found only low levels of parasitoid attack on South Asian fruit 

flies. There are, however, exceptions: in Pakistan CIBC (1972) reported individual maximum attack 

levels of 44% (by Trybibliographa daci) and 10% and 37% (by Opius longicaudatus), although 

why this might have been is unclear. 

Integrated Control Most recommendations to farmers combine at least two control techniques as an 

integrated package. Examples in India include: 

Karnataka (IIHR, pers.comm.) 

- collection and destruction of fallen fruit 

- raking/ploughing 

- 1 or 2 cover sprays of carbaryl or decamethrin applied with reference to predictive model 

Karnataka (Singh, 1997) 

- fruit collection every 3 days and burial “deep” 

- area-wide male annihilation, traps replenished every 10 days 

- area-wide sterile male release 

- bait sprays in “endemic areas” 

Gujarat (GAU, pers.comm.) 

- Jujube (Carpomyia vesuviana) 

- 2 cover sprays of malathion/fenthion/neemark 

- Mango, sapota (Bactrocera spp.) 

- sweet basil trap crop sprayed with insecticide 

- methyl eugenol traps, at one per 12 trees 

- cover sprays every 15 days, one in 12 trees also with methyl eugenol 

- Cucurbits 

- methyl eugenol traps 

- bait sprays of jaggery and insecticide every 15 days 

- collection and destruction of fallen fruit 

- deep ploughing 

Tamil Nadu (anon., udated) 

- methyl eugenol traps at 12 per ha 

- fallen fruit destruction 

- raking and ploughing to disrupt pupae 

- bait spray of 1ml malathion 50EC/0.5ml fenthion 100EC with 10g of crude sugar in 1l water 

- giberellic acid spray to enhance resistance 

- soil drench of azadirectin (neem) or neem seed extract 

31

Uttar Pradesh (CISH, 1998) (mango) 

- need-based bait sprays of protein OR molasses every 21 days 

- methyl eugenol and malathion traps at 10 per ha 

- fruit collection and disposal 

- ploughing 

- early harvest 

Area-Wide Control In many parts of the world fruit flies are controlled in a coordinated way over 

large areas (e.g. Mauritius, Israel, USA, South Africa), and there is a role for a study of the extent to 

which economies of scale accrue when control is area-wide as opposed to on individual plots, and of 

how the benefits of area-wide controls may be most efficiently realised. This may need to take the 

form of comparison of the effectiveness of control in areas of different sizes, but also of specific 

studies of migratory capacity, such as using marked flies to estimate migratory capacity. 

The study of fly migration across barriers is difficult and has been limited so far. Stonehouse, 

Manrakhan and Mumford (in prep.) found that only 2% of freshly emerged B. zonata were 

intercepted by an intense grid of lure and bait attractant traps, though uncaught flies may have 

penetrated the barrier or been killed. 

Noticeably, larval and pupal controls (parasitoids, fruit destruction, ploughing etc) all implicitly 

make assumptions about the mobility of emerged adults, as it is only ovipositing females whose 

reduction leads to savings of fruit (the destruction of eggs and small larvae, allowing their fruit to be 

saved, is assumed not to be practical, and assuming that emerging parasitoids damage fruit as much as 

flies) in assuming that reductions of populations of larvae and pupae lead to reductions in ovipositing 

adults which are not replaced by immigration from outside the treated area. Yet these authors know of 

no study, in India or anywhere else, which has specifically tested how much immigration may replace 

losses to the population by such controls. 

Social and Economic Factors 

In addition to the central role of official extension and support agencies, India is particularly 

rich in associations such as NGOs, cooperatives and farmers' associations, which offer different 

opportunities to provide farmers with key resources such as information, material inputs, group 

organisation and access to markets, transport and other essentials for agricultural development. 

In general, much fruit fly research on a global scale is on quarantine and risk assessment, and 

less on cost-effective on-farm suppression, particularly imperfect but cheap controls suitable for small 

farmers (Stonehouse, 2001). The world literature is particularly scanty in addressing farmers’ opinions 

and perceptions of the practical usefulness of the methods recommended to them. There are also only 

very few studies of the quantified cost-benefit values of practices when carried out on farms. This 

pattern also holds true for India, where the published information on the social and economic 

usefulness of control alternatives is less abundant than that on technical findings of controls in 

operation. The realistic assessment of farmers’ perceptions of the usefulness and practicality of 

control operations remains a priority area. 

Conclusions 

There is a large volume of excellent research studies on fruit fly biology and control. Farmers, 

however, continue without ecological and integrated controls. There is a role for adaptive research to 

optimise the reliability and economy of controls from the farmers point of view, and a study of the 

ways in which these may be made attractive to farmers in operation. 

32

Appendix III. Work Plan 

ACTIVITIES SUMMARY 


1.1.1: Incidence mapping of flies and distribution 

1.1.2: Tabulation and synthesis of damage and loss records 

1.1.3: Review of biological research results 

1.1.4: Tabulation and analysis of records of controls 

1.2: Survey 

1.2.1: Trapping of adults 

1.2.2: Rearing out from collected fruit 

1.2.3: Key informant interview survey 

1.2.4: Semi-structured interview survey 

1.3: Opening workshop 


2.1: Laboratory single-killing-point study 

2.2: Field single-killing-point study 

2.3: On-farm control trials with farmer evaluation 


3.1: Institutional study of village-level organisation 

3.2: Village-level control trials 

3.3: Village participatory rural appraisal of trial outcome 

4: Closing workshop 

The work is proposed to take place over two and one-quarter years. Experimental and survey 

work (Activities 1.2, 2 and 3) will take place at eight points, by five administrative centres (three in 

Gujarat by GAU, two in Kerala by KAU, one each by CISH Lucknow, IIVR Varanasi and IIHR 

Bhubaneshwar). The knowledge review (Activity 1.1) will be centred on one institution (IARI, New 

Delhi, with journeys). 

The research will begin and end with workshops to assemble all researchers together to 

exchange experience, ideas and expertise. 

All research participants will require the following: 

- personnel, their subsistence and travel costs 

- a computer with standard software (word-processing and spreadsheets) 

- reliable e-mail and telephone connections 

Activity 1: Problem Analysis 

Activity 1.1: Knowledge Review 

Much high quality information already exists, and so a major component is to be a 

comprehensive review of existing knowledge, an extension of the sketchy beginning outlined in 

Appendix II. Literature searched will include (a) refereed papers, (b) other scientific publications such 

as conference proceedings, (c) annual reports by national institutes and state bodies such as 

Agricultural Universities, (d) “grey cover” literature such as reports by research institutes and specific 

projects and programmes, (e) student research theses, (f) documentation of other bodies such as 

NGOs, cooperatives and companies, and (g) other material such as media reports (newspapers, 

magazines) which throw light on agricultural problems. It will be accompanied by interviews with 

researchers active in the particular areas. 

33

The knowledge review will include formal tabulations, by spreadsheet or database in 

conjunction with software engineers and geographers currently developing standard systems in India, 

for the synthesis of information. This work will also include synthesis and incorporation of many of the 

results obtained by the survey activities described below. The Knowledge Review researcher will also 

serve as the anchor point for the many of the Survey activities described below – many of the outputs 

of this latter have been designed to be incorporable into the tabulation discussed below (as in the mix 

of textual references and personal communications brought together in Appendix I). 

1.1.1: Incidence Mapping 

Much is known about the distribution and gravity of fruit fly pests throughout South Asia. The 

many estimates of infestation rates from the literature, from sources such as pest control trial data 

(both treated and untreated plots), will be brought together, for systematic evaluation. It is expected 

that as much information as possible from the literature survey will be systematically assembled in 

tabular form in databases or spreadsheets, connectable to GIS systems, with records of fly species and 

research locations expressed as ecogeographical zone and standard latitude and longitude coordinates. 

This will apply in particular to records of infestation and of controls by lures and baits. 

1.1.2: Tabulation of Infestation and Damage 

Fly infestation data will be gathered from sources such as damage reports and the infestation 

of experimental plots, both control treatments and untreated controls. All will be gathered in a 

systematic way to allow overall synthesis (Stonehouse et al., 1998, 2001), modelled on the preliminary 

start presented in Appendix I. 

The conversion of infestation data to economic loss quantification requires additional 

knowledge of both production volumes and prices. Data on Indian production of fruit and other hosts 

will be obtained from a variety of official and unofficial sources - FAO databases, National 

Horticulture Board (Negi 2000a,b). This will be combined with price data to obtain values of 

production of various hosts to farmers. 

Findings of infestation levels will be formally tabulated as follows:- 

- Host species and variety 

- Loss estimate (%) 

- Fly species 

- Location of any preserved specimens 

- Control(s) in force 

- Month(s) 

- Year(s) 

- Any meteorological information 

- Location, as placename, ecogeographical zone and latitude and longitude 

- Source 

1.1.3: Review of Biological Knowledge 

Much valuable biological information exists, for example on determinants of fly abundance, 

from laboratory and field records of abundance associated with temperature, humidity, host 

nutritiousness, etc, all of which are to be tabulated by species and location. 

An important component will be a tabular record of particular fly species’ preferences for and 

survival in particular host species. Studies on oviposition preferences and host suitability by factors 

such as survival percentage and development speed, particularly when comparative between different 

hosts and flies, provide another insight into infestation and loss rates, as those species with high 

preference for and survival in certain hosts may reasonably be expected to be the same as do those 

hosts most damage. The literature survey will include reports of laboratory rearing studies showing and 

evaluating preferences for particular hosts by particular flies in particular areas. All will build on the 

tabular structures outlined in Appendices I and II. 

34

1.1.4: Tabulation of Controls 

Findings of the effectiveness of lures and bait will be tabulated as follows:- 

- Nature of attractant 

- Attraction level 

- Fly species 

- Sex of catch 

- Location, as placename, ecogeographical zone and latitude and longitude 

- Source 

A tabulated record will be assembled of other control techniques giving the level of control 

obtained and the circumstances - to cover all cases of toxicities of insecticides, pathogens etc., pupal 

destruction, fruit removal, host resistance and natural enemies etc. 

Knowledge Review: Material Requirements 

Apart from the standard requirements above, requirements will be of photocopying facilities (it 

is proposed to copy all relevant articles not in the Pusa Institute main library, and to place the copies 

there) and a travel budget, as the researcher will be required to visit institutions and libraries. 

Activity 1.2: Survey 

Survey activities will be carried out at all locations (8) of “Experimental” activities. Because 

annual fluctuations in populations are pronounced, and vary between years, zones, hosts and fly 

species, the survey will be run for two years. The components of the survey are intended to be carried 

out at the same sampling points by the same researchers. These components are intended to address 

each others’ strengths and weaknesses, to allow synthesis as discussed below. 

While limited in the number of sample points accessible, the survey may be seen as a trial or 

pilot of methodology. If the monitoring activities at each sample point can be established to be useful, 

the number of points may be increased in a future study. Information gathered will be integrable into 

technified wide-area studies (particularly sharing protocols with existing computer database and GIS 

studies), existing insect reference specimen collections so that these are augmented, and with other 

plans for taxonomic and surveying studies. It will also help to establish a network of contacts between 

fruit fly researchers, and is hoped to be a first step to comprehensive “stress maps” of where the 

pressure on crops is applied, as losses in terms not only of areas but by crops (possibly even varieties), 

by seasons (or months), and under which control treatment regimes 

1.2.1: Trapping 

The survey will record incidence and abundance of species and subspecies, by a standardised 

suite of traps:- 

1 - parapheromone lures 

methyl eugenol 

cue-lure 

trimedlure 

2 - food bait 

protein hydrolysate 

fruit pulp 

jaggery 

sugar 

3 - visual - coloured sticky balls 

yellow 

red 

It is proposed to use home-made traps from local or re-used materials, rather than specialised, 

imported versions. This is not to save money per se so much as to minimise the cost of the “standard 

35

trap set” so that it may economically be extended in future, if need be, to a larger number of sites (and 

be less prone to theft). Lure traps may be made of PET drinks bottles or plastic sachets (Verghese 

and Jayanthi, 2001), food traps of such bottles or plastic ice cream tubs (Nakagawa et al., 1975; 

Rhode and Sanchez, 1982) and visual traps by painting sticky adherent to coloured plastic toy balls; the 

construction of these traps, however (receptacles used, number and size of holes etc.) will require 

standardisation, possibly with reference to international studies. It may be necessary to begin with 

some comparative studies to evaluate candidate traps for relative power, as is being done in India for 

cotton pink bollworm traps (Tamhankar et al., 2001). In a selection of sites it is proposed also to use 

specialised, imported traps such as McPhail traps, to allow the relative catching power of home-made 

and imported versions to be calculated for calibration. 

Each survey zone will include two trap set replicates in the same district, separated by at least 

1km. In each trap set the lay-out will be as a circle 10m in diameter, with advantages of direction given 

to the less powerful - coloured sticky balls facing west and south, parapheromone lures facing north 

and food lures facing south and east. Traps will be monitored weekly year-round. Additional records 

will include the simplest ways of recording the known important extrinsic factors dictating abundance - 

host availability and temperature were found by many studies to be the major determinants of 

abundance (eg Shukla and Prasad 1985) although it may be desirable to include relative humidity, 

though costlier to record. Records will comprise the following:- 

1: Annual Record Sheets will record each trap site’s map reference, altitude, ground 

vegetation and building cover and the approximate percentage land surface coverage by the eight most 

important crops over (a) the surrounding 1km 2 and (b) the surrounding 100km 2 . This will be done by 

simple ordinal scores of estimates, for example of vegetation cover as 0=none (0%); 1=small patches 

or isolated individuals (1-10%); 2=medium patches or several individuals (11-30%); 3=large areas or 

many individuals (31-60%); 4=dominant, near-continuous (61-100%). 

2: Weekly Record Sheets will record:- 

a - All Tephritid catches by trap, species and sex 

b - Weekly near environment, as the developmental stage of each crop, with estimates of fruit 

production, the week’s weather and other local events such as irrigation and pesticide sprays. This 

information, though often largely subjective and impressionistic, will enable allowance to be made for 

peculiar local factors such as chemical sprays or large flushes of particular host fruit, which may 

influence local trap catches 

c - Temperature by maximum-minimum recording thermometers. Cheaper and simpler than equipment 

to record average temperature, which requires continuous temperature monitoring, these allow the 

recording of day degrees or thermal units (Aliniazee, 1976) given as the average of maximum and 

minimum temperatures minus 5 degrees, which was found by Shukla and Prasad (1985) to be a close 

predictor of fruit fly abundance. 

3: All catches from food and visual traps (cleaned and prepared as necessary) and a sample of 

at least 30 flies from each lure trap, will be pinned out, remaining lure catches will be preserved in jars 

of alcohol; all will be cross-referenced to their data sheet records. 

Trap Survey: Material Requirements 

- Trap suite as above, with baits, lures and killing strips. 

- Water, alcohol and acetone for cleaning of flies from bait and sticky traps 

- Dry mounting materials - plastezote sheets, pins, labels, mounting cases, desiccant and preservative 

chemicals 

- Wet preservation materials - alcohol and jars 

1.2.2: Rearing Out 

Susceptible fruit of important types will be collected for the rearing-out of fly pests and natural 

enemies. As very demanding of resources if done on a large scale, this part of the survey will be 

largely ad hoc rather than systematic or comprehensive, to clarify and enlighten points raised by the 

36

other methods. In fields where losses are substantial but typical of the area, and particularly where 

dual attack by two (or more) species is suspected, 30 fruits will be selected, as late as possible before 

harvest to obtain the most accurate estimate of commercial loss. Each sampled fruit will be kept in 

isolation to allow records of the distribution of flies or parasitoids among fruit. Fruit will be placed on 

sand, regularly sieved for emerged pupae, which will then be transferred to glass phials stoppered with 

cotton wool to await the emergence of adults for identification. Adults will be fed and watered for 48 

hours to allow colours to develop, then killed and mounted. Emergence records will be made on 

standard data sheets which will be copied onto standard spreadsheet analysis templates. These 

automatically calculate the percentage infestation, and also several variables which determine the 

relationship between larval population and fruit infestation (and therefore economic loss): 

- average number of larvae per infested fruit 

- departure of larval distribution from a random Poisson model 

- spread between within-tree and between-tree variation sources 

- association between infestation frequency and the number of larvae per infested fruit 

Hosts will be harvested at or near harvest, to obtain the best possible economic loss estimate. 

It is anticipated that at any one sampling point the maximum number of batches of 30 fruit kept at any 

one point will be between 2 (60 fruit) and 5 (150 fruit) and that the maximum in any entire year be 

between 10 (300 fruit) and 20 (600 fruit). 

Rearing Out Survey: Material Requirements 

- A cool and ventilated rearing room, with a maximum-minimum-recording thermometer 

- Vessels, sand and gauze for keeping fruit 

- Sieve for extracting pupae 

- Phials and cotton wool for rearing pupae 

- Killing agent 

- Dry mounting equipment as above 

1:2.3: Key Informant Survey 

Estimates of infestation and economic losses will be obtained in a survey of farmers, 

extensionists, researchers, NGOs, cooperatives, traders, host fruit wholesalers and retailers, and 

service industries such as pesticide salesmen. Key Informant Surveys allow a cost-effective 

intermediate between formal, full-scale randomised-sample questionnaire surveys and other informal 

techniques such as Rapid Rural Appraisal and other group studies, allowing individual informants’ 

estimates of quantities such as percentages to be compared with each other and thus validated 

(Escalada and Heong, 1997). In comparison with formal surveys, informal surveys generally obtain 

results virtually as good with much lesser costs in time, manpower and other resources (Franzel, 1984). 

(At the moment a formal survey is not envisaged as part of this project). 

As well as absolute fruit fly infestation, this survey will pay attention to fruit fly severity 

relative to the problems of other, perhaps more serious, pests. No pest problem can be practically 

addressed by consideration in isolation, and the interactions, for better or worse, of fly controls with 

those of other pests will greatly affect their usefulness to farmers. Fruit flies are by no means always 

and everywhere the most serious pest of their hosts: other pests of similar hosts include serpentine leaf 

miner, viruses borne by aphids and thrips, scales, shoot borers, midrib folders, seed and fruit borers, 

jassids, sapota bud borer, mango hopper, mealybug, leaf webber and stone weevil. Farmers often 

misidentify the causes of damage, and are sometimes more likely to mistake other damage for fruit fly 

than vice versa. Mango farmers in Vietnam, for example, commonly mistake damage by the seed 

borer Deanolis albizonalis for that by Bactrocera dorsalis (van Mele et al., 2000). For this reason it 

is important to “triangulate” the estimates of farmers and other groups - particularly trained ones such 

as researchers and extensionists – to control possible sources of bias. 

37

It is proposed that each survey point interview 12 to 20 respondents. Full notes must be taken 

of these conversations, whose usefulness is not limited to the bald replies to formulaic questions (see 

below). 

Key Informant Survey – Draft Question Set 

- Position of respondent (e.g. farmer, extension agent, farm input salesman) 

- In this area what are the main crops grown - area, production and prices? 

- What are, in rank order, the eight most serious pests, and on what crops (including non-fruit-flyhosts)? 

- What are the percentage losses of production to fruit flies if left uncontrolled, host by host? 

- What is the incidence of local control practice(s), host by host (e.g. “10% of mango farmers use 

methyl eugenol traps” or “Two-thirds of cucumber farmers spray insecticide”)? 

- What is typical expenditure on local control practice(s) (e.g. “Most farmers spray cucumbers four 

times with product X or product Y; each takes A man-days per hectare and costs B rupees”)? 

- What are the percentage losses of production to fruit flies, with local controls, host by host? 

- Overall, what do people think about the fruit fly problem and the controls available to them? 

Key Informant Survey: Material Requirements 

Notebooks, question lists and software 

1.2.4: Semi-Structured Interview (SSI) Survey 

For social goals, it is also important to establish to which social and economic groups costs and 

losses fall, and what are the opportunities available to farmers and pest managers. Economic 

considerations alone provide only a limited understanding of whether control recommendations will 

actually be attractive and useful to farmers. Additional questions arise of farmer resources, opinions 

and perceptions for fly management, and it is proposed to address these with a social-science-led study 

of how control options are perceived, so that candidate technologies are evaluated following 

considerations of farmer priorities, not ahead of them, and of the institutional and economic factors 

which may enhance the acceptability, value, uptake and success of control technologies. The variety of 

folkloric and other controls mentioned above will be acceptable and useful to farmers, or not, 

depending on their match with farmers’ resources (access to cash for inputs which must be bought, 

access to labour and information for controls requiring them), opinions (in some cases different 

resources, for example cash, labour or information, may be to some extent inter-substitutable - when 

so, which farmers will prefer to use will depend on their opinions and preferences rather than any 

formal economic cost-benefit analysis) and perceptions (the desire to substitute low-chemical controls 

for large-scale pesticide use may depend largely on farmer perceptions of pesticides as unhealthy or 

unnatural and so requiring minimization beyond strict cost-benefit comparisons). 

Farmer responses to fly pests may comprise nothing, cover sprays, bait sprays, lures, or some form of 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). There is a need to know what is done, the reasons for these, 

their requirements for resources (such as access to sprayers) and economic and other costs 

(particularly of pesticide use on health, beneficial organisms and the wider environment) and perceived 

effectiveness and farmer satisfaction. This information requires supplementation by knowledge of the 

social and institutional context of controls, in terms of support services and delivery of material inputs 

such as pesticides and lures. Economic structures are important, providing farmers with access to 

markets (traders, transporters, wholesalers and retailers) and with the products or services used for 

pest management (pesticide and input manufacturers, importers, dealers and retailers, and contractors 

providing pest management services). The role and behaviour of these impinging institutions will also 

be considered. 

38

In addition to the Key Informant Survey, and to some extent involving conversation with the same 

people, will be a qualitative survey by Semi-Structured Interviews (SSIs), in which a basic list of core 

questions is asked where possible, but at the same time maximum attention is given to exploiting 

interesting or unexpected remarks, to allow the exploration of perceptions and opinions on a wide 

range of relevant topics, a process often characterised as “Art as much as science” (Rhoades, 1982). 

In contrast to formal surveys, where the desired outcome is often statements such as “X% of farmers 

practise Y”; in SSI surveys the desired outcome is explanations and rationales of why people think 

what they do, in such statements as “Those farmers who prefer Y do so because they consider A 

more important than B; those who do not prefer Y consider B more important than A.” Specific 

techniques may be used such as “elicitive contrasts” to find the reasons for choices by contrast with 

rejected options such as “Why did you choose this rather than that?” - which often elicits reasons 

better than direct questioning such as “What reasons did you use?” (Gladwin, 1983). Information may 

be extracted as stories or history. Simple ranking and scoring may be done, as in matrix scoring of 

control options (cover sprays, cultural controls, bagging, lures) with criteria of effectiveness and 

problems (expense, hard work, boredom etc) to allow formal cross-comparison of the pros and cons of 

individual options in farmers’ eyes (in this sense loosely analogous to cost-benefit comparisons). The 

objective is to understand the reasoning, logic and other thought processes directing perception and 

behaviour, rather than reaching a “sample” representative of a “population” (Yin, 1994). 

Semi-Structured Interview Survey – Draft Question Set 

- How serious are fruit flies as pests? 

- How does their attack differ from that of other pests? 

- What do you and/or your neighbours do about them? 

- How and why do these controls differ from those against other pests? 

- How did these controls come to be used? 

- Why are these controls used rather than others - were alternatives tried before rejection, and what 

went wrong to make them unsuitable? 

- Where does advice come from, what form does it take and what effect does it have? 

It is proposed that 12 to 20 farmers be interviewed for each SSI survey point. Many will be 

the same respondents as for the key informant survey, but researchers must ensure that respondents 

represent the general run of small farmers - i.e. the smallest smallholders. Full notes must be taken of 

every conversation, and these must be fully typed out, in English, into word processor files. This is 

particularly important: as the training and preparation for this research will address, valuable 

information is sometimes likely to be disregarded on first receipt, and it is all too easy to forget or omit 

important information when notes are being taken or typed up. Only full English-language notes will 

permit verifiable and checkable conclusions to be drawn and cross comparisons made between 

different areas (with different local languages). 

Semi-Structured Interview Survey: Material Requirements 

Question lists, notebooks 

1.2.5: Synthesis of Survey Outputs 

The quantification of infestation is complicated as each of the various methods available has 

weaknesses as well as strengths. Trap catches are a poor guide to infestation, as species differ in their 

susceptibility to lures and baits, Dacus ciliatus for example being relatively indifferent to both. 

Estimates by farmers, traders and even researchers are subjective and prone to distortion. The 

rearing-out of pupae from sampled fruit is complicated and costly, represents generally only small and 

imperfectly-selected samples, ignores losses caused by the premature fall of infested fruit, and requires 

repeated sample through the season to capture full losses as a sample taken only at harvest will ignore 

flies which have already damaged fruit, emerged and pupated. 

39

The proposal here is to maximise reliability, by the integration of all available methods to lock 

together to exploit the particular strengths of each method. If, for example, Bactrocera dorsalis were 

caught as 10000 in methyl eugenol traps, 5 in protein traps and 30% by rearing-out, and Dacus ciliatus 

were caught as zero in methyl-eugenol traps, 4 in protein traps and 60% in rearing out, and the total 

loss estimates from key informants and literature for the neighbourhood were of 45%, one might infer 

overall losses of that host to dorsalis of 15% and to ciliatus of 30% - an outcome not reachable from 

any methods considered in isolation from the rest of the suite. Table III.1 shows the relative strengths 

and weaknesses of the four methods, and how their strengths offer mutual reinforcement. 

Table III.1. Relative strengths (3=high; 1=low) of different methods of estimating fruit 

infestation. 

Method QuantCompreObject- Realistic Inexpifiedhensiveiveensive 

Trapping 1 3 3 1 2 

Rearing out 2 1 3 3 1 

Key informant survey 3 3 1 3 3 

Literature survey - loss 3 2 3 3 3 

Literature survey - biology 1 1 3 1 3 

Percentage infestation and loss figures gathered from these sources may be integrated, as by 

Stonehouse et al. (1998, 2001) in Seychelles and Pakistan, and a start to such an operation for India is 

sketched out in Appendix I. This approach, it should be conceded, will not obtain fully precise loss 

estimates due to the complexity of fruit fly losses (e.g. differential development and attack rates 

among sequential cohorts of fruit on the same tree and collected at the same harvest) but provide 

some indication, and the economic evaluations of losses, as the product of crop loss, production 

volumes, and crop values/prices, is essential to calculate total losses for the rational cost-benefit 

analysis of the returns to investment in management (including research proposals such as this one). 

Economic losses may be estimated as the product of production statistics, infestation or loss 

rates and price data, all obtained as discussed. Current information is limited to calculations from 

production volumes and market prices in publications and inferred losses from the literature, but a 

preliminary attempt at synthesis for some of the important tree fruit is given in Table I.3. It is important 

to obtain estimates of the areas which are protected, and how, as opposed to unprotected; these data 

may be obtained from a combination of literature and key informant surveys, as outlined above. 

The above will also gather, albeit in simple form, the following information:- 

i - yield without fly controls 

ii - yield with fly controls 

iii - prices 

iv - spending on controls 

Thus a simple cost-benefit analysis of different control methods as currently in use may be carried out, 

as the estimation for each crop, area and control of the net value of control as [(i-ii)*iii-iv]. Although 

simple, this will allow some evaluation of the returns to existing controls, and suggest options for their 

improvement. 

Activity 2: Farm-Level Control Experimentation 

Many different control options have been evaluated and/or recommended in India. These 

range from cover sprays to cultural controls such as fallen-fruit collection to locally-derived lures and 

baits such as basil, fruit juice, ammonia, jaggery and molasses, often fermented, as described in 

Appendix II. This study will systematically compare the costs and benefits of these, paying particular 

attention to the “attractant” techniques of lures and baits, which offer promise for economical control 

with minimal pesticide use. Attractant controls may be efficiently and quickly assessed as “single 

40

killing points”, and these techniques will be used for the rapid evaluation of large numbers of candidate 

attractants. 

Although the assessment of cover sprays requires full-field trial analysis, single-killing-point 

evaluation can evaluate both attractants and lethal ingredients. As ingredients in attractant controls, 

there are many lethal elements used against fruit flies, including synthetic chemicals, neem, other 

botanicals and pathogens. Neem may be suitable for cover application but not for combination with 

attractants, which depends on the attraction of flies to baits and lures, and a question is whether neem, 

which has a slight repellent as well as insecticidal effect, may work as the killing ingredient in these, or 

may repel flies and thus undermine attraction and mortality. Other botanicals such as Ipomyia and 

Pongamia may be worth assessment for use alongside neem. Active-ingredient comparisons may also 

include entomopathogens. In general, farmers distrust sprays of these because of the destruction the 

pests may cause in the incubation interval between being infected and overcome. If it is the case, 

however, as generally assumed, that many protein meals are taken by females who need the protein to 

develop eggs, fungal bait applications may be effective, as the fungus may develop pathogenicity in the 

interval needed for egg development. Several Indian research institutes have cultures and expertise of 

Metarhizium, Beauvaria and faster-acting crystalline Bt proteins. 

This study will include a systematic evaluation of the real cost-effectiveness of different baits, 

with kills distinguished by sex, and with the evaluation of pH (Heath et al., 1994) and possibly salinity 

and amino acid content effects. It will allow for the rapid mass-scale processing of evaluations, with 

reference to commercial protein hydrolysate as a standard. “Home-made” preparations will at least 

initially be from commercial preserved preparations, with the same batch number, to allow reliable 

comparability of baits in different sites - for example tinned cat food for fish. 

Preliminary assessments of the autolysis of brewer’s yeast cells may be carried out with use 

of a medical haemocytometer to record cell rupture - this may provide a quick way to assess the 

relative performance of proteolytic enzymes to find a cheap alternative to papain (several fruits contain 

proteolytic enzymes). 

Methyl eugenol, the best-known parapheromone lure, is available and used over much of India 

to attract males of Bactrocera dorsalis and zonata. Lures may be used in a variety of formulations 

such as plastic traps, with and without insecticide, and soaked-wood killer blocks; which of these are 

most cost-effective for farmers with different resource availabilities in terms of chemicals, traps and 

labour, will be studied. 

The study will also compare the performance of mixtures of baits and lures relative to one 

alone, by a series of fully factorialised comparison of possible combinations, as the following 

treatments: current unconfirmed impressions are that bait and lure may negatively affect each other, 

but that mixes of multiple baits or of multiple lures may offer advantages, hinted at by some results 

reported in Appendix II. 

Assessment will be by a tier of control assessments for bait and other on-farm controls, 

progressing in increasing cost, complexity and realism. This process of “industrialising” bait and lure 

assessment allows the rapid, replicated and systematic evaluation of baits, hopefully permitting “fine 

tuning” of sensitive variables known to affect effectiveness. It economises by the initial assessment of 

attractant controls by counting flies which are attracted to, and killed by, a single “killing point”. This 

produces direct information about the effectiveness of individual killing points, and reduces demands 

for space, as only one point is assessed instead of an entire plot, and time, as the number of killed flies 

itself comprises the data, instead of the assessment of fruit damage and yield. This method includes 

insecticide in the full field bait formulation, allowing comparison of not only attractants but also 

insecticides and deployment methods - comparing, for example bait spots applied to foliage and wood 

and traps as are used made of coconut shells or ceramics. This research will proceed in a hierarchy of 

levels of increasing realism with increasing cost and time-consumption, in three stages from laboratory 

single-killing-point studies to field single-killing-point studies to farm-level studies (with economic and 

social evaluation forming in a sense a fourth tier). These research strategies have been evaluated by 

41

Imperial College in the past, and three proposed peer-reviewed papers (one at time of writing in press, 

two in preparation) are appended outlining the history of their use (Appendix IV). 

2.1: Laboratory Single -Killing-Point (SKP) Evaluation 

This system has been successfully evaluated (Zia et al., 2001; Stonehouse et al., 2002) but 

may require refinement. The proposed laboratory methodology minimizes uncontrolled effects by 

assessing baits not individually but as simultaneous comparisons of pairs in choice chambers, so 

allowing extraneous differences such as time of day, fly age, nutrition and the order of testing to be 

discounted. Comparisons are made in a series of two-way choices, between two different bait 

formulations placed at opposite ends of a long cage arena. On the centre line, equidistant between the 

two treatments, freshly-emerged adult flies are released, and subsequent fall of dead flies recorded on 

either side of the centre line, to give a relative estimate of the power of each deposit to attract and kill 

flies. Each cage is 2m long, 0.5m wide and 0.5m high, of a painted wood frame, floor and ceiling, with 

glass and gauze walls, and contains a dish with a sugar-water wick placed on the centre line. Between 

the two treatments at the cage extremities, the arenas are filled with untreated potted young plants, to 

mimic a field in which only a fraction of plants have been treated, and to evaluate realistically the 

powers of the deposits to attract and kill flies at a distance through a stand of untreated plants. 

Cages are checked every day to see if flies remain alive, and then corpses counted by sex and 

location when all are dead (there is little point in counting flies daily, as this experiment gives little 

information about deposit decays, as if one decays faster than the other, the second may give a 

meaningless impression of increasing in potency). The experimental design allows standard assessment 

of data, on prepared data sheets for entry into standard spreadsheet analysis files by 2-way replicated 

ANOVAs of treatment and fly sex. Experimentation will begin with some runs to check the validity of 

the equipment - checking that attractant controls collect more fly casualties than insecticide alone, and 

that two identical preparations attract equal numbers of flies. 

Laboratory SKP Evaluation: Material Requirements: 

- 8 wooden cages, built in 2 blocks of four. Each cage 2m long x 05m wide x 0.5m high, allowing each 

block of four to stand 2m high. Wooden construction, standing on short (10cm) legs to exclude ants. 

- An indoor environment to allow the cages to be set up symmetrical to possible disturbances such as 

heat and light sources, including a maximum-minimum recording thermometer and, to allow 

experimentation throughout the year, possibly heating in some parts of the country. 

- For every replicate in every experimental comparison: 

- 20 freshly emerged adult flies 

- 2 potted plants to be treated and disposed of 

- 10 potted plants, not to be treated, capable of being reused 

For food lures, each experiment lasts 5-7 days. For continuous operation, therefore, the replicate needs 

will be required every week - the required production of flies and plants will be the major outlay. 

2.2: Field Single -Killing-Point (SKP) Evaluation 

This methodology has been used in Pakistan and Mauritius (Afzal et al., 2001; Zia et al., 2001; 

Stonehouse et al., in prep. A). The principle is that the flies killed by a single killing point (bait spot or 

lure block) in a real field situation are collected in a receptacle hanging below it, for counting and thus 

evaluation of the relative lethality of different killing point types. Killing points hung in plantations or 

fields are checked and emptied daily or weekly, and fly counts used to assess lethality and the duration 

of its effects. For reliability of comparisons, it is well to have beneath at least some of the collectors 

further, precise collectors to allow the assessment of the distribution of dead flies falling outside the 

main collector, and thus how the main collector represents the total fly mortality attributable to the 

killing point. Initial comparisons were with a tier of descending and widening collectors to evaluate the 

curve of corpse catch decay with distance from the killing point. This had drawbacks in (a) the coarse 

grain of distance catches and (b) the need for correction of catches with the descent of collectors in 

42

tiers. It is proposed to replace this by deploying alongside the main collectors a few (2 per 

experimental block) “calibration collectors”, flat sheets hanging below the killing points at the same 

height at the treatment collectors, but allowing the precise location of each dead fly to be recorded 

upon falling. The construction of these remains to be finalised, but the current plan is to use extrudedplastic 

grille mesh used to support perspex sheets below fluorescent lights in suspended-panel ceilings. 

This mesh comprises sheets of cells, about 3cm square in plan and with plastic walls about 2cm high. It 

is already used to form individual-rearing cells for predatory insects by biological control researchers at 

Gujarat Agricultural University, and may hopefully be put together by combining panels, both alongside 

and on top of each other, to obtain sheets about 2mx2m square, composed of hundreds of cells, open at 

the top (to allow flies to fall in) and floored with mesh (to trap flies while allowing rainwater to drain 

out), 3cm square in plan and about 6cm high (to prevent dead flies from being plucked out by the 

wind). The study of dead flies in such a grid, below a killing point, will allow the detailed analysis of 

how dead flies fall, and thus the modelling of how catches in treatment collectors represent total 

mortality by each killing point. The use of a rectangular grid will allow analysis by vector algebra 

statistics (Batschelet, 1984). 

Field SKP Evaluation: Requirements 

- Treatments: - baits, lures, insecticide(s), ethanol solvent, lure blocks, bait applicators, traps 

- 50 killing point collectors to be deployed by each research group, in various combinations of numbers 

of treatments and levels of replication 

- Access to field sites of adequate size and number for collectors with bait treatments to be 7.5m 

apart, those with MAT treatments 15m apart. 

2.3: On-Farm Trials 

These will be required both for methods not amenable to single-killing-point analysis, such as 

cover sprays, and for the final economic evaluation of attractant controls identified as promising by 

smaller-scale studies - the attraction and killing of flies is not the same as obtaining actual control, and 

should not automatically be taken as a proxy for it. There is often a suspicion that male lures merely 

kill males without reducing female matedness, and that some recommendations for male trapping may 

confuse in the farmer’s mind its usefulness for population monitoring as opposed to actual control. 

Cover sprays, while considered by IPM practitioners the last resort, can and do control flies 

when applied in a position to do so, and will not be assessable by single-killing-point technology but will 

require full-field evaluation. The comparison of cover sprays of neem with BAT may be valuable. 

Most recommendations to farmers combine at least two control techniques as an integrated 

package. Full-field-level controls will be needed for assessment of combinations of cultural controls 

(fruit destruction, ploughing), bait sprays, parapheromone lures, cover sprays etc. Only full-field trials 

will show the fullintegrability of various control techniques. 

Fruit samples will be of six fruit on each of five randomly-selected trees in each experimental 

plot, with two or more experimental plots on each farm (depending on space). Initial results 

(Stonehouse et al., in prep. B) indicate that six farms or sites will be required for each comparison. 

Assessment will be by a standardised suite of records of fruit production, infestation and 

harvest, initially developed elsewhere (Mahmood et al., 2001; Stonehouse et al., in prep. B), 

comprising the following. 

i - Harvested yield Harvests from all plots will be assessed and recorded by farmers and/or 

assessors as weights of counts of fruit, at the farmer’s convenience. Prevailing price data will also be 

gathered, along with relevant costs (particularly estimates of control costs) to allow the economic 

returns to different practices to be compared. 

ii - Fruit production Estimates will be made of the numbers of fruit on each of five trees sampled, 

and the area of ground covered by each tree and its height. Numbers of fruit will be divided by an 

estimate of tree volume, obtained by multiplying the height by area estimates, to obtain an estimated 

density per cubic metre of tree canopy. Fruit on the ground will be counted in three randomly-thrown 

43

square-metre quadrats beneath each tree, and the average of these, as a mean value per m2, divided 

by the tree’s estimated height to obtain an estimate of fallen fruit per cubic m of canopy. Differences 

in the tendency of fruit to fall will be compared by the ratio of fallen to tree fruit per m3 of canopy. 

iii - Fruit infestation Infestation of fruit will be assessed by three methods. 

1 - Harvested fruit counted and categorised by the farmer into pristine, fly-attacked and not visibly 

attacked but spoiled by rot or similar. 

2 - A formal sample of susceptible fruit taken from the field as late near harvest as possible (a 

previous one just at the beginning of control implementation may also be done, to allow 

researchers practice in techniques and to check for non-treatment differences between 

treated and untreated plots). These will comprise 30 fruit, as six fruit from each of five trees. 

Fruit will be inspected and classified into those unblemished, apparently oviposited, apparently 

exit-holed and rotting. 

3 - The same fruit are to be kept in field laboratories for the collection of emerging flies. Fruit will be 

kept in cool rooms (checked by maximum-minimum thermometers), in individual containers, to 

allow the quantification of larval distribution among fruit and of numbers of fruit infested. 

These characteristics will be analysed by spreadsheet programmes. Additional to economic 

differences between treatments, the spreadsheet automatically tests the characteristics of 

larval distribution as outlined above. 

The three approaches complement each other by balancing precision and robustness: the formal 

samples (2 and 3) are relatively small (30 fruit) and taken not at harvest but before, whereas farmer 

assessments (1) are of the whole harvest taken as it was gathered; visual damage assessments by 

farmers (1) and researchers (2) are essentially subjective, and uncertain indicators of fly attack 

(oviposition punctures can resemble other blemishes; exit-holes can resemble bird and beetle attacks) 

but the rearing of larvae from fruit (3) while objective and certain, lacks robustness in field conditions 

where collection, transport and storage may affect larval mortality, for example if rearing laboratory 

temperature and humidity fluctuate beyond those in the field. These relative advantages are 

summarised in Table III.2. 

Table III.2. Fruit infestation methods scored as to advantageousness 

by criteria (1=low; 3=high) (adapted from Stonehouse et al., in prep. – Table IV.C.1). 

Criterion Farmer harvest Sample Sample 

estimate inspection Larva rearing 

Sample size 3 2 1 

Proximity to harvest 3 1 1 

Objective certitude 1 2 3 

Robustness 3 3 1 

Activity 3: Village-Level Trials 

Fruit flies are controlled in a coordinated way over large areas in many parts of the world, 

including Mauritius (where B. zonata has been controlled to “very low levels” by area-wide bait 

sprays, Permalloo et al., 2001), Israel (where 27000Ha are simultaneously treated, reducing medfly 

infestation of citrus to less than 0.05%, Gazit and Roessler, 2001) and South Africa (where an 

experimental use of Sterile Insect Technique over a single valley has obtained zero medfly infestation, 

Barnes, 2001). It is proposed to include a study of the extent to which economies of scale accrue 

when control is area-wide as opposed to on individual plots, and of how the benefits of area-wide 

controls may be most efficiently realised by social and economic structures. Economic “externalities” 

arise when the costs and benefits to the agent of a particular action are not the same as those to 

society at large: for example if a private trading company raises a navy to protect its ships from 

pirates, other ships enjoy protection without making a contribution, as "free riders". Such cases require 

communal action in order effectively and sustainably to share the costs of social action (Mumford and 

Stonehouse, 1994), ideally through voluntary “bottom-up” cooperation to contribute to shared costs for 

44

general benefit. Socially-cooperative control offers great benefits in cost-effectiveness, but requires 

full cooperation to attain these (Enkerlin and Mumford, 1997). 

3.1: Village-Level Institutional Study 

Village-level studies will begin with a survey of village-level institutions which may provide 

cooperation and concerted action by groups of farmers. This will require social organisation and thus 

entail a key role for coordinating institutions such as cooperatives, NGOs, government agencies, selfhelp 

organisations and traditional institutions such as religious bodies. Sadly, it is often the case that 

cooperative area-wide controls set up by state bodies, though highly profitable for and enthusiastically 

welcomed by farmers, are not carried on by individuals and voluntary organisations when state support 

is withdrawn, as is happening in Mauritius (Permalloo et al., 2001), and so the robustness and 

commitment of social organisations are critical for the sustainability of area-wide control even when its 

efficacy is proven. The study will assess how such institutions may productively, reliably and 

sustainably provide the cohesion required. India, with its particular wealth of social organisations and 

groupings such as these, offers a particularly promising location for a study of this sort into how 

exactly such organisations may realise economies of scale in the optimisation of pest management. 

The study will take the form of visits to candidate villages, with the establishment of 

cooperative links with farmers’ organisations, sounding out the possibilities of research cooperation in 

village level control, with the following draft question set for each: 

- Nature of organisation 

- Extent and budget 

- History and development 

- Goals, including any statement of principles 

- Essential operating philosophy, including any statement of principles 

- Extent of inclusiveness - to cover all residents or a specified subset 

- Level of success and public perception 

- Nature and functionality of relations with other organisations 

This may be supplemented by village-level group participatory rural appraisal (PRA) discussions of 

why and how people might find it profitable, practical and sustainable to carry out controls jointly. 

Village-Level Institutional Study: Material Requirements 

Access and contacts in candidate villages and organisations. Notebooks. 

3.2: Village-Level Trials 

It is proposed in the second year of fieldwork to evaluate wide-area control at village level, in 

liaison with village organisations contacted and evaluated previously, such as extension services, 

cooperatives, NGOs, etc. Due to the difficulties of this research, few quantified studies of the 

minimum area suitable for area-wide control have been performed, so the current “best guess”, 

possibly awaiting future refinement, is for one square kilometre (suggested by Cunningham, 1989) - 

roughly a small village and its immediate garden environs. The objective is to implement season-long 

wide-area village-level control, and to assess its success by evaluating fly populations and damage (as 

described above) inside and outside the protected area(s). Village-level control will be assessed 

relative to not only no-treatment but also to farm-level control outside a village-level control context, to 

assess the added value of cooperative control. It may be that village level of a certain level of intensity 

will not eradicates flies, and so there may still be room for further improvement by farmers in the 

protected area carrying out on-farm controls on their own account as well, so that village- and farmlevel 

controls deployed together may obtain superior control to either alone. The current proposal is for 

a factorial design – at each of the eight experimental centres four villages will be assessed, two with 

and two without village- level control (to allow two replicates of each full treatment at each of the 

eight research centres). In each village one farm will receive farm-level control, and another will not. 

This design is intended to show the relative effectiveness of farm- and village-level control, and of 

45

interaction between them, in a factorial design, as shown in Table III.3. Each village will be monitored 

by a trap set, as in 1.2.1, and each farm by the on-farm production and infestation monitoring technique 

set, as in 2.3. 

Table III.3. Suggested factorial design for the evaluation of village- and farm-level fruit fly 

control. 

Control Farm-level 

No Yes 

No No control Farm-level control 

Village-level 

Yes Village-level 

control only 

Village-Level Trials: Material Requirements 

If possible to be evaluated at four villages per experimental centre. 

- baits, lures, insecticide, applicators for control 

- trap suites for monitoring, as in 1.2.1, above 

- on two farms: fruit production and infestation assessment, as in 2.3 above 

46 

only 

Village- and farmlevel 

control 

3.3: Participatory Rural Appraisal of Village-Level Trials 

The evaluation of farmers’ and villagers’ opinion of the usefulness and practicability of villagelevel 

control will be by means of participatory group appraisal (PRA) and group discussion, as well as 

survey and SSI activities. Discussions will focus in particular on how villagers may see opportunities 

for organisations and institutions to ensure that area-wide control, if seen as worthwhile, is sustained, 

with continuing commitment to the resources needed, and not fragmented and lost. 

Additional: Focussed Research and Information Gaps 

The use of student researchers under academic supervision is intended to leave time and 

resources for individual research projects to focus on specific problems, either points of interest or 

information gaps identified by the Knowledge Review. Personnel will have more time for this in the 

second than the first year of the project and, of their nature, these cannot be predicted at this point, but 

possible future topics may include:- 

- Role of cultural controls such as the ploughing and/or harrowing of soil to destroy pupae and the 

collection and destruction of fallen fruit. Sadly, both these practices appear too demanding of time and 

energy to be favoured by all but the keenest farmers. The difficulty with fruit collection is its 

destruction, as discussed in Appendix II. 

- Other cultural controls. In Pakistan, Khan et al. (1992) found that in a trial of various techniques the 

best economic cost:benefit ratios were 1:9 for ash dusting, 1:7.9 for intercropped squashmelon as a 

trap crop and 1:2.7 for poisoned cut-melon baits. This is a slightly atypical result which may repay 

further study. 

- In general, the value of IPM is inherently difficult to evaluate, as the implication of the value of more 

than two treatments at once requires the assessment of each individually, as well as of different 

combinations of some or all, so that the number of evaluation options increases as the factorial of the 

number of controls deployed, with consequent large demands on research resources for evaluation. As 

a result, mathematical computer models are often required for the full assessment of IPM, and the 

development of such a model for fruit fly control may be a worthwhile aim. Mathematical modelling is 

not part of the project as currently proposed. 

- When two or more control techniques are deployed together, their effects may be less than the sum 

of their parts if, after the action of one control, the action of a second imposes mortality which is 

positively density-dependent, so that fractional mortality is less than if the first had not been deployed - 

life table analysis may show if this is the case. Conversely, two or more controls may have an effect

greater than the sum of their parts when the effectiveness of the second is negatively densitydependent, 

being greater at low densities - this is often the case in fruit fly controls, where those which 

work by mating interruption by denying females access to males, such as MAT, often function best at 

low population levels; this too may require some study, particularly of mate-seeking behaviour in males 

and females. 

- For the optimisation of area-wide control, some fundamental questions of fly management biology 

may be addressed by behavioural studies in the laboratory. For example, in Male Annihilation 

Technique (MAT), there is a need for studies as to what do mated and unmated females and males do, 

and in Bait Application Technique (BAT) as to what males and females eat, and to what foods are 

they attracted, how often they feed and with what intervals relative to inferred satiation, and how food 

seeking and consumption are affected by age, fedness, matedness etc., by laboratory studies of exactly 

how freshly emerged adult females respond to different requirements (males, sugar, protein) by 

attraction relative to their tendency to migrate (capturable in the laboratory by frequencies of taking to 

the wing rather than roosting, feeding etc.). 

- Similar questions of wide-area control entail studies of fly migration, as this will critically affect their 

capacity to cross the control barriers which provide the advantages of area-wide control. In 

Madagascar Ceratitis malgassa has a specific pattern of annual migration, including a migratory 

morph (Raveloson-Ravaomanarivo, 1996). The study of fly migration across barriers may be 

approached by a variety of methods including mark-release-recapture studies (Stonehouse, Manrakhan 

and Mumford, in prep.). If all the pupae in an area may be annihilated (by ploughing, soil treatment, or 

plastic-sheet sterilisation) then all flies subsequently found may be assumed to be immigrants - the 

scale on which this provides any crop protection will indicate necessary scales for social control (the 

destruction of pupae at individual farm level, for example, may offer not benefit to the farmer if fly 

immigration swamps its effects, and so all non-adult controls may require social cooperation at village 

level or greater). 

Synthesis of Outputs and Activities 

Table III.4 shows how the key research questions identified as knowledge outputs are each 

addressed by the research activities. Although no one activity is sufficient alone to address any one 

question, taken as a whole the research programme addresses them all. 

47

Table III.4. Overview of the relationship between Key Questions (Knowledge Outputs) of 

the Research Programme and its Activities, “X” signifying an activity to address a question. 

KNOWLEDGE 

1A: 1B: Problem 2A: 2B: Farm- 3A: Village 3B: 

OUTPUTS:- 

Problem analysis: Farmlevel level Village- 

analysis: Social conlevel control: control: level 

Fly sequences control: AppropEffective- control: 

damage and EffectiveriatenessnessApprop- Activities 


constraints nessriateness 

1.1.1: Incidence mapping X 

1.1.2: Damage tabulation X X 

1.1.3: Biology review X X X 

1.1.4: Controls tabulation 

1.2: Survey 

X X 

1.2.1: Trapping X 

1.2.2: Rearing out X X 

1.2.3: Key informants X X X X 

1.2.4: SSIs X X X X 


2.1: Laboratory SKP study X 

2.2: Field SKP study X 

2.3: On-farm trials 


X X X 

3.1: Institutional study X 

3.2: Village-level trials X X 

3.3: Village PRA X 

Activity 4: Closing Workshop 

Together, the studies proposed will allow the assessment of how realistically and practically 

farm-level management may be improved from economic, social, environmental and health points of 

view, while remaining appropriate to farmers and thus able to be actually adopted. This will lead to the 

final output of this project: first recommendations as to the optimum farm stratagem in every case, 

categorised by crop, fly species, the financial and time resources available to the farmer, operational 

scale (from small-plot to village level) and other criteria; second robust and productive village- and 

local-level plans for the improvement of fly pest management, tailored to the specific ecogeographical, 

economic and institutional contexts of the particular areas where problems are found. 

Several publications will be prepared on socio-economic studies, baits, lures, fly migration and 

IPM components. It is anticipated that some of these activities, as is normal, will be completed after 

the end of the project. 

48

Appendix IV. Prior Scientific Papers. 

Appendix IV.A. “Single -Killing-Point” Laboratory Assessments of Bait Controls of Fruit 

Flies 

(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan 

John Stonehouse a* , Qamar Zia b , Riaz Mahmood c , Ashraf Poswal c and John Mumford d 

a 

Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of 

London, Royal School of Mines, London SW7 2BP 

b 

University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 

c 

CABI Regional Bioscience Centre, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 

d 

Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7PY 

*Corresponding author. Tel 020 7594 9311 fax 020 7589 5319 E-mail j.stonehouse@ic.ac.uk 

Crop Protection 21 (2002): 647-50 

Abstract 

In the evaluation of insect controls by baits and lures considerable advantages are offered by the assessment of the 

efficacy of a single “killing point”. Modifications of Bait Application Technique (BAT) were evaluated in the laboratory in 

Pakistan using choice chamber cages for pairwise comparisons of individual spot deposits of bait recipes. In attracting and 

killing Bactrocera cucurbitae, a home-made beef meat broth had 68.7% of the effectiveness per unit volume of commercial 

protein hydrolysate. The addition of urea and cucumber extract source did not enhance the effectiveness of broth bait. There 

may be a substantial health risk from the mixing of insecticide with meat broth which is prepared in a way similar to a food 

product. The methodology developed offers the rapid and reliable assessment of alternative bait mixtures and formulations. 

Key words: Pakistan, fruit fly, bait control 

Introduction 

Tephritid fruit flies cause annual farm-level losses in Pakistan estimated at US$200 million (Stonehouse et 

al., 1998). Bait Application Technique (BAT) offers a control which is reliable, economic and uses a minimum of 

chemical insecticide. In BAT a mixture of hydrolysed protein and insecticide is applied in spot deposits 

(Roessler, 1989). Adult fruit flies on eclosion need a protein meal for full maturation, particularly for reproduction, 

and so before attacking fruit are attracted to these spots, feed on them and die from ingesting the insecticide. 

Relative to cover sprays, BAT uses lower doses of insecticide, can be applied on foliage, avoiding the fruits 

themselves, and generally offers superior control. BAT with protein hydrolysate bait has been successfully 

evaluated in Pakistan (Latif et al., 1987). 

This research sought ways to make BAT practical, cheap and reliable for farmers in Pakistan, evaluating 

the potential for substitution of costly, imported protein hydrolysate bait with cheaper, home-made alternatives. 

Many such studies have evaluated baits made from waste brewer’s yeast (Lloyd and Drew, 1997). Pakistan 

having no substantial brewing industry, this study evaluated boiled meat broth. In Afghanistan the United 

Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation successfully developed baits for melon farmers consisting of broth 

made from cheap beef meat, with malathion, fermented cucumber extract as a cucurbit smell source and human or 

animal urine or urea as an ammonia source (Stride, 1996). 

Methods 

The assessment of fruit fly controls is generally by conventional field trials, comparing whole plots 

treated in different ways. Alternatively, BAT may be assessed by counting flies which are attracted to, and killed 

by, a single “killing point” of a BAT spot. This produces direct information about the effectiveness of individual 

killing points, allowing more detailed comparisons and information for the optimisation of spot size, spacing and 

application. It also reduces demands for space, as only one point is assessed instead of an entire plot, and time, 

as the number of killed flies itself comprises the data, instead of the assessment of fruit damage and yield. A 

major objective of this research was the development and verification of such assessment techniques, to see 

whether it is possible to obtain reliable information from such “single-killing-point” assessments, and thus to use 

these techniques to “industrialise” the comparison of controls, allowing large numbers of options to be reliably 

assessed with low demands for time, space and labour. 

Lloyd and Drew (1997) used a laboratory technique for the assessment of baits against Bactrocera 

tryoni Frogatt, assessing the attraction of flies to baits by counting flies on sponges soaked in candidate baits. 

Baits were assessed individually, without an insecticide component, and the same flies re-used for successive 

assessments. The method developed here included insecticide in the full field bait formulation, and aimed to 

minimize uncontrolled effects by assessing baits not individually but as simultaneous comparisons of pairs in 

49

choice chambers, so allowing extraneous differences, such as time of day, fly age, nutrition and the order of 

testing, to be discounted. 

Comparisons were made in a series of two-way choices, between two potted young melon plants treated 

with different bait formulations and placed at opposite ends of a long cage arena. On the cage centre line, 

equidistant between the two treated plants, freshly-emerged adult flies were released, and subsequent fall of 

dead flies recorded on either side of the centre line, to give a relative estimate of the power of each deposit to 

attract and kill flies. Each cage was 2m long, 0.5m wide and 0.5m high, with painted wood frame, floor and ceiling, 

walled with glass on one side and with wire gauze at the other and at either end. Doors in the glass side allowed 

flies in jars to be placed on the centre line and then released. Each cage contained a dish with a sugar-water wick 

placed on the centre line. Between the two treated plants at the cage extremities, the arenas were filled with 

untreated potted young melon plants, to mimic a melon field in which only a fraction of plants have been treated, 

and to evaluate realistically the powers of the deposits to attract and kill flies at a distance through a stand of 

untreated plants. Plants were about 15cm high, and were selected and positioned to maximise the symmetry of the 

stand about the centre line. The arenas were positioned to be symmetrical to light and warmth, and their facing 

directions adjusted until daily catches by two identical preparations were evenly divided. Six arenas were used as 

replicates, in three pairs built one on top of the other and standing on legs in dishes of water to prevent ant raids. 

In each cage pair the two treatments were placed at opposite ends in a Latin square design. The cages are 

illustrated in a preliminary graphical report elsewhere (Zia et al., 2001). 

Insects were from a laboratory culture of melon flies, Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillet, from a stock 

taken near Karachi. Emerged adults from pupae taken from the culture were fed sugar water only until 

experimental release. Ten males and ten females were released in each run. 

Each comparison lasted until no live flies were observed, typically five to ten days. Not all of the 20 flies 

released in each experiment were always recovered; the missing ones were inferred to have expired in the soil in 

the melon pots. Records were taken of the maximum and minimum temperatures and of the time elapsed before 

each experiment ended. Treated melon plants were destroyed; untreated plants were reused, but rotated through 

the greenhouse to refresh them. The cages were washed with soap and water at the end of each experiment. 

The protein dosage was based on an unpublished survey of the literature (Stonehouse, J.M., Mumford, 

J.D., 1998, Protein Bait Spray Control of Fruit Flies: A Survey of Recommended Doses and Application Rates, 

Imperial College, London, 5pp, available from j.stonehouse@ic.ac.uk). It comprised 30ml of commercial protein 

hydrolysate (International Pheromone Systems Ltd, Ellesmere Port, South Wirral, CH65 4TY, UK. 

ips_ltd@btconnect.com) and 3ml of malathion 57% active ingredient emulsifiable concentrate (“Fifinone” 

obtained locally) made up to 1l with water. The preparation of animal protein was based on that recommended by 

the FAO Afghanistan Rural Development Programme. It comprised 0.75l of broth made from 300g cheap beef 

meat, boiled for two hours, stood overnight and skimmed of fat, 0.125l boiled and mashed cucumber filtrate liquid, 

mixed with 50g of urea and stood to ferment for two days, with 3ml of malathion (Fifinone), made up to 1l with 

water. In order to ensure homogeneity of non-experimental variables, the preparations of commercial hydrolysate 

bait, meat preparation bait, cucumber extract, urea and insecticide were made initially in a single batch, and all 

frozen in compartmented ice cube trays, and then thawed out and mixed with other ingredients when needed. The 

literature survey found a typical application rate of protein hydrolysate bait to be 7.5lha -1 (0.75mlm -2 ), repeated 

every 10 days. Each half of a cage arena was approximately 0.5m 2 and so each treated plant was treated with 0.5ml 

of mixture, applied to the leaves with a pipette in droplets of approximately 1mm diameter. 

Six comparisons were performed, between March and July 1999. First were two to test the validity of the 

method; subsequently, baits were compared to test four questions of crop protection importance. 

i - Two identical bait preparations (method check). 

Protein hydrolysate with malathion was compared with itself to see if flies confronted with two theoretically 

equally attractive options fell dead evenly about the centre line. 

ii - Bait preparation compared with nothing (method check). 

Protein hydrolysate with malathion was compared with an untreated plant to see if larger numbers of dead flies 

fell on the side of the centre line facing the putatively more effective mixture. 

iii - Bait preparation compared with insecticide without bait. 

Protein hydrolysate with malathion was compared with a preparation of the same strength of malathion with no 

bait, to confirm whether bait significantly attracted flies to the deposit. 

iv - Commercial and home-made bait preparations. 

Protein hydrolysate formulation was compared with standard animal protein formulation, to evaluate the ability of 

home-made animal protein baits to attract and kill flies as efficiently as commercial preparations. 

v - Value of urea component. 

Standard meat preparation mix was compared with an identical preparation without urea, to see if the urea may be 

omitted to simplify and economise the preparation with no severe loss of efficacy. 

50

vi - Value of cucurbit extract component. 

Standard meat preparation mix was compared with an identical preparation without cucumber extract, to see if the 

latter may be omitted. 

Results and discussion 

The results of the six comparisons are given in Table IV.A.1, showing the average numbers, over the six 

replicates of each comparison, of dead flies found in the half of the arena with each treatment. These were 

recorded separately for males and females. Analysis for each treatment comparison was by two-way replicated 

analysis of variance to compare treatment, fly sex and interaction between them. This found sex effects and their 

interaction with treatments to be insignificant (all twelve F ratios were less than unity). As a result, the table 

shows only the total numbers of dead flies and F values for treatment differences. 

Table IV.A.1. Results of laboratory assessments of different bait preparations, as numbers of flies out of an 

initial release of 20 found dead in the end of choice chamber cages containing each treatment, as means and 

standard deviations (S.D.) from six replicates, and the outcome of an analysis of variance (with in each case 1 

and 20 degrees of freedom) to compare them. 

Treatments Mean S.D. F 

Commercial hydrolysate + malathion 9.17 ±2.32 0.014 

Commercial hydrolysate + malathion 9.33 ±2.25 ns 


Nothing 1.17 ±0.75 *** 


Malathion only 1.00 ±1.27 *** 


Full home-made mix + malathion 7.67 ±1.63 * 

Full home-made mix + malathion 9.17 ±1.72 0.000 

Home-made mix minus urea + malathion 9.17 ±1.33 ns 

Full home-made mix + malathion 8.83 ±0.41 0.031 

Home-made mix minus cucumber + malathion 9.00 ±1.27 ns 

The initial two comparisons provided evidence of the validity of the methodology - the comparison of 

two identical treatments obtained an even distribution of dead flies between the two, and that of treated and 

untreated plants obtained many more flies in the treated part of the arena. The third comparison showed that 

insecticide without bait attracted only a small fraction of the flies of the bait mixture. The fourth showed that the 

attracting and killing power of the home-made mixture as a fraction of the commercial one was 7.67/11.17=68.7%, 

with a 95% confidence interval, conventionally derived by parametric methods, between 53.3 and 92.9%. The final 

two comparisons implied that the urea and cucurbit odour source were not worthwhile additions to the homemade 

mix. 

It was concluded that the home-made broth bait had roughly two-thirds of the efficacy of commercial 

hydrolysate - potentially a useful effect when its greatly reduced cost is considered. The addition of urea and 

cucurbit extract did not give a significant improvement. 

More generally, the two-treatment comparison of “killing points” appeared able quickly and reliably to 

compare the effectiveness of bait treatments. The accuracy of the method may be reduced when the lethal agent 

in the mixture evaluated has a relatively slow knock-down time, with such insecticides as spinosad, fiprinile and 

insect growth regulators, as the location of the fly corpse may not be a suitable index of attractant efficacy in 

these cases. In cases where it is feared that cultured flies may lose natural responses to attractants, the technique 

could be used with wild flies, reared directly from infested hosts. 

Acknowledgements 

Thanks are due to Drs Barry Stride, Umar Baloch and David Huggett and an anonymous reviewer for 

Crop Protection. This document is an output from a project funded by the UK Department for International 

Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries (R6924 and R7447, Crop Protection Programme). The 

work of this project provided the winning entry for the DFID Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy 

Annual Award Scheme, 2000. The views are not necessarily those of DFID, and all errors and omissions remain 

the responsibility of the authors. 

51

Appendix IV.B. “Single -Killing-Point” Field Assessments of Bait and Lure Controls of Fruit 

Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan 

John Stonehouse a* , Muhammad Afzal b , Qamar Zia b , John Mumford a , Ashraf Poswal c and Riaz Mahmood c 

a Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and 

Medicine, University of London, Royal School of Mines, London SW7 2BP 

b University of Arid Agriculture, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 

c CABI Regional Bioscience Centre, Rawalpindi, Pakistan 


Crop Protection – 21 (2002): 651-9 

Abstract 

Variations of Bait Application Technique (BAT) and Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) were evaluated in field 

studies of the effectiveness of individual “killing points” of food bait spots, or parapheromone lure traps or 

blocks, by recovering flies attracted and killed, in collectors below the killing points. BAT spots were more 

effective applied to natural foliage than to cut wood, cloth or plastic. BAT with a home-made meat broth killed 

65.7% of the number of flies killed by commercial protein hydrolysate, and application by brushes was as 

effective as by a sprayer. There may be a health risk from the mixing of insecticide with a meat bait which is 

prepared in a way similar to a food product. MAT by wooden blocks soaked in lure and insecticide was 

compared with the plastic lure-baited traps currently used in Pakistan; blocks killed four times more flies than 

traps, are cheaper and less vulnerable to theft and weather, and require no recharging and replacement. Plywood 

blocks killed more flies than those of mulberry and poplar wood, though not than acacia. Square and oblong 

blocks were more effective than round and hexagonal ones. The study showed that “single-killing-point” 

analysis of alternative fruit fly controls can produce consistent results while being quicker and cheaper than fullfield 

trials. 

Key words: Pakistan, fruit fly, Bactrocera, on-farm controls, bait, lure 

Introduction 

Tephritid fruit flies cause annual farm-level losses in Pakistan estimated at US$200 million (Stonehouse 

et al., 1998). This research looked for ways to adapt two successful on-farm control technologies, Bait 

Application Technique (BAT) and Male Annihilation Technique (MAT), to be as practical, cheap and reliable as 

possible for farmers. 

In BAT a mixture of protein and insecticide is applied in spots (Roessler, 1989). Adult fruit flies on 

eclosion need a protein meal for full maturation, particularly for reproduction. Before attacking fruit, therefore, 

adult flies are attracted to these spots, feed on them and die from ingesting the insecticide. Relative to cover 

sprays, this technique uses lower doses of insecticide, can be applied in spots on leaves and foliage, thus 

avoiding the fruits themselves, and generally offers superior control. It has been successfully evaluated, though 

not widely used, in Pakistan (Latif et al., 1987; Khan et al., 1992; Qureshi and Hussain, 1992). This study sought 

to find the optimum concentration of protein hydrolysate in BAT sprays, and to evaluate the substitution of 

commercial components with cheaper, home-made ones - bait of boiled meat broth instead of protein hydrolysate, 

applied by brushes instead of sprayers. In Afghanistan in 1996 the United Nations Food and Agriculture 

Organisation developed baits for melon farmers consisting of brush-applied cheap meat broth, and the 

technology was used successfully by farmers (Stride, 1996). 

Control by MAT exploits the attraction of males to parapheromone lures, locally exterminating males so 

that unmated females do not reproduce (Cunningham, 1989). Most pest fruit fly males in Pakistan are attracted to 

methyl eugenol, and are controlled by the use of plastic traps, containing wicks soaked in this liquid, which they 

enter, and then die of overheating inside (Qureshi et al., 1976, 1981; Marwat and Baloch, 1986; Marwat et al., 

1992; Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993). These may be replaced by wooden blocks, soaked in parapheromone 

and insecticide, which attract flies and kill them when they stand or feed on the surface. Compared with the traps, 

the blocks are cheaper, simpler, last longer and are less likely to be blown down or stolen. This research aimed to 

evaluate and maximise their effectiveness. Block wood type and block shape may affect performance: some 

woods and/or shapes may allow more rapid evaporation of the lure mixture and so may attract more flies than 

other, harder woods, but also deplete their lure load faster and so last less long. In the Seychelles the spongy 

and fibrous husk of the coconut caught more flies, and lasted longer, than plywood or coconut shell or wood 

when used with trimedlure against Ceratitis capitata (Stravens et al., 2001). In Mauritius, the Indian Ocean 

Regional Fruit Fly Programme found square plywood blocks to be less effective than ones of the same area in the 

shape of a rectangle twice as long on one side as on the other (Harnaivo Rasamimanana, pers. comm.). 

52

Methods 

The assessment of BAT and MAT controls is generally by conventional field trials, comparing plots 

treated in different ways. An alternative is to retrieve and count the corpses of flies which are attracted to, and 

killed by, a single “killing point” of a BAT spot or an MAT trap or block. This reduces demands for space, as 

only one point is assessed instead of an entire plot, and time, as the number of retrieved carcasses itself 

comprises the data, instead of the assessment of fruit damage and yield, and produces direct information about 

the effectiveness of individual killing points. A major objective of this research was to develop and verify such 

“single-killing-point” techniques, to see whether it is possible to obtain reliable information, and thus in future to 

use these techniques to “industrialise” comparisons of control options, allowing large numbers of variables to be 

reliably assessed with low demands for time, space and labour. Lloyd and Drew (1997) tested individual BAT 

spray spots on foliage with 1.5m 2 groundsheets below, and the National Fruit Fly Programme of Mauritius 

evaluated killing points with conical cloth bags hung beneath (Indira Seewooruthun, pers. comm.). This study 

assessed the mortality caused by individual BAT and MAT killing points in fruit trees in farm orchards, 

approximately 1.66m above the ground, by hanging directly below each a conical cotton collector bag, its circular 

mouth held rigid with a wire loop. 

This study also aimed to evaluate the accuracy of these collectors as estimators of the total mortality 

caused by the killing point below which they were hung. Collectors will fail to record the deaths of flies which 

receive a lethal dose at the killing point but, before dying, fly beyond the perimeter of the collector mouth and so 

fall to the ground outside it. The numbers of these were assessed by placing beneath the central collector two 

additional, wider collectors to catch those that fell outside the central collector. The use of these additional 

collectors was intended to model the decay curve of catches with distance, to estimate the total fly mortality 

caused by the treatment, and to gauge how accurately the catch in the small, central collector may represent the 

whole mortality caused. 

The central collector had a circular mouth of 0.305m radius and was hung 6cm below the killing point 

(1.6m above the ground). Because of the need to accommodate the body of the central collector, the outer ones’ 

mouths also dropped in height at they stood out from the centre, forming together three tiers of increasingly 

wider and lower receptacles. The second collector had a circular mouth of 0.610m radius (i.e. 0.305m outside the 

first) and was 0.8m below the first (0.8m above the ground). The third and lowest collector was a square sheet of 

1.829m along each side laid on the ground (an area of 3.345m 2 , equivalent to a circle of radius 1.032m, i.e. 0.422m 

outside the second). The calculation of total mortality attributed to a killing point, from the three collector tiers, 

was as follows. 

First, because the central collector was hung close below the killing point (in order to maximise its catch) 

whereas the other two were regularly spaced to the ground, the three collector mouths were irregularly spaced as 

to height. This was assumed to affect their ability to catch dying flies falling away from the killing point at an 

angle: a collector was assumed to catch relatively more flies the wider its mouth was horizontally, but relatively 

fewer flies the larger was the vertical drop to its mouth rim from the one above, as flies falling at an angle would 

be likelier to pass over the rim and not be collected. This was corrected by weighting the individual catches of 

the three receptacles by multiplying them by the ratio between the vertical and horizontal distances between the 

rim of the receptacle and its upper neighbour (i.e. the trigonometric tangent of the angle of declination of the 

descent from one mouth rim to the next). 

Second, the decline in catches with increasing distance from the killing point, corrected as above, was 

evaluated against an expected model of exponential decay. Catch data were converted to natural logarithms (after 

the addition of one to forestall the calculation of LN(0)), regressed against distance from the killing point, and the 

three values predicted by the resulting regression equation compared against the three values found. 

Comparisons were evaluated in three ways. The first was by visual inspection of graphic plots. The second was 

the comparison of observed and expected values by Kolmogorov-Smirnov goodness-of-fit tests. The third was 

by determining whether each observed relationship was more or less extreme or “elbowed” in shape than the 

model, calculated, from the three observed catch levels (O1, O2, O3) and the three expected levels (E1, E2, E3), as 

whether the quantity (O1 E1)-(O2 E2)+(O3 E3) was greater than zero, denoting an observed relationship more 

elbowed than the model, or less than zero, denoting an observed relationship less elbowed than the model (i.e. 

closer to an arithmetic, “straight-line” relationship): the relative frequencies of positive and negative departures 

were then compared. 

Third, total catch was modelled as the area under the fitted exponential decay curve, between the killing 

point and a cut-off distance of four metres radius and, fourth, the fraction of the total catch represented by the 

original central collector catch was calculated. Table IV.B.1 gives an example illustration of the complete 

modelling process. The fraction of total estimated mortality represented by the central collector catch was 

evaluated for differences between experimental treatments and time elapsed in days or weeks. Because of the 

importance of the relationship between central collector catch and total estimated mortality, and the dangers of 

53

assuming a constant relationship when there is a risk of a difference, statistical outcomes of these tests are given 

below even when these were not significant at the 0.05 level. 

Table IV.B.1. Example of treatment of a data set (from a plywood MAT block on the third day of its deployment). 

This data set after we ighting did not differ from the exponential decay model (Kolmogorov-Smirnov 

D=0.0491ns), and the weighted observed data were less “elbowed” than the exponential model - 

(O 1 E 1)-(O 2 E 2)+(O 3 E 3)=-11.8. Extension of the modelled catch to four metres from the killing point obtained a 

total catch estimate of 122.17 flies; the actual central collector catch (115) was 98.2% of this estimated total 

mortality. 

Collector 1 2 3 

Rim distance from killing point (m) 0.305 0.61 1.032 

Horizontal distance from previous rim (m) 0.305 0.305 0.422 

Vertical distance from previous rim (m) 0.06 0.8 0.8 

Tangent of angle of declination (ratio) 0.1967 2.6230 1.8957 

Original catch (No.) 115 4 1 

Multiplied by tangent (No.) 22.623 10.492 1.896 

Weighted to original sum (No.) 77.541 35.961 6.498 

Exponential model (No.) 83.078 30.073 6.850 

The descending tiers of collectors were sometimes damaged or dislodged, and useable data were not 

obtained in all of the assessments described below. When these data were not obtained this is indicated and the 

central collector data were analysed alone. 

In comparisons of the catching effectiveness of different treatments, data are presented throughout as 

the total catches over the period of killing point deployment. The evaluation of their crop protection usefulness 

also requires estimation of how long killing points last before needing to be replaced. Catches were thus 

compared with days elapsed from first deployment until the experiment ended. All decays of catches in time were 

compared by least-squares regression to both linear and exponential fitted models and by visual inspection of 

graphical plots. In no case was the fit of one regression model to the data significantly closer than the other, and 

the exponential was chosen as the model for use, as considered likeliest to represent the decay in concentrated 

effectiveness over time. With this model used to estimate the relationship, the value chosen for comparison of 

treatments’ durability was the estimated time it would take for the daily catch per killing point to fall to one fly, a 

point termed the killing point’s “persistence”. The use of a regression estimate also allowed data from analogous 

experiments to be compared when, as often and inevitably happened, they were run for different lengths of time. 

Research encountered operational difficulties, such as the vagaries of weather, crop development, field 

access by bus or bicycle and the theft or destruction of collectors, and as a result comparisons unavoidably 

varied in duration and level of replication. The analyses below are attempts to provide useful information in spite 

of these shortcomings. 

BAT 

BAT studies were carried out (by QZ) in guava orchards between Rawalpindi (33 o 21'N, 73 o 6'E) and 

Haripur (33 o 41'N, 73 o 6'E) in the growing seasons of 1998 and 1999. Trees were on experimental stations or farms, 

and between 2 and 10Ha, interspersed with non-fruit arable crops and without fly controls. Space did not permit 

the grouping of spot treatments into complete randomized blocks and these were evenly spaced throughout 

orchards, at least 10m apart and 10m from orchard edges. Protein hydrolysate dosage was based on an 

unpublished survey of the literature (Stonehouse, JM, Mumford, JD, 1998 Protein Bait Spray Control of Fruit 

Flies: A Survey of Recommended Doses and Application Rates, Imperial College, London, 5pp, available from 

j.stonehouse@ic.ac.uk). It comprised 30ml of commercial acid-hydrolysed protein hydrolysate (International 

Pheromone Systems Ltd, Ellesmere Port, South Wirral, CH65 4TY, UK. ips_ltd@btconnect.com), and 3ml of 

malathion 57%a.i. emulsifiable concentrate (“Fifinone” obtained locally), made up to one litre with water. Each 

spot was of 12.5ml applied over approximately 0.125m 2 of fruit tree foliage with a hand-operated garden sprayer of 

0.5l capacity. 

The first experiment compared protein hydrolysate bait spots applied to different substrate surfaces. 

Farm applications are generally to living leaves and branches of trees, but artificial substrates are quicker and 

easier to use for both farm control and experimental assessment. Applications to living trees must be done by 

moving the application equipment all through a field, but discrete artificial surfaces may be treated all together at 

a convenient point and then carried into the field and hung up. For practical control and also for rapid 

experimentation, therefore, the relative attractiveness of deposits on natural vegetation and on candidate artificial 

surfaces must be known. Sprays were applied to living foliage of guava (Psidium guava) and to three artificial 

54

surfaces - cotton cloth, plastic sheet and commercial sawn timber (deodar, Cedrus deodara) - replicated five 

times. 

The second experiment compared protein hydrolysate doses. The bait strength used, of 30ml.1 -1 was in 

fact greater than the most frequent recommendation, of 20ml.l -1 . The appropriateness of this was tested by 

comparing concentrations of 0, 20, 30 and 40ml.l -1 , all with the same concentration of insecticide, replicated ten 

times. 

The third comparison was of commercial protein hydrolysate with meat broth protein, and of application 

by sprayers with that by brushes. The preparation of animal protein was based on recommendations from the 

FAO Afghanistan Rural Development Programme, developed against Bactrocera cucurbitae in Herat (34 o 22'N, 

62 o 10'E) comprising 0.75l of broth made from 300g of beef meat, boiled for two hours, stood overnight and 

skimmed of fat, 0.125l boiled and mashed cucumber filtrate liquid, mixed with 50g of urea and stood to ferment for 

two days, with 3ml of Fifinone malathion, made up to one litre with water. The recommended field application rate 

(Barry Stride, pers. comm.) is approximately 2.5l.ha -1 , at intervals of 10m or 5 plants (whichever is nearer), repeated 

every 10 days. A first experiment, replicated ten times, compared baits, and a second, replicated five times, 

compared baits and application techniques. 

MAT 

MAT treatments were compared (by MA) in farmers’ mango, guava and citrus orchards in three 

locations - Islamabad (33 o 41'N, 73 o 6'E), Rawalpindi (33 o 21'N, 73 o 6'E) and Bhakkar (31 o 36'N, 71 o 4'E) - in the growing 

seasons of 1998, 1999 and 2000. Orchards were of medium to large size (5 to 20Ha), interspersed with wheat, 

cotton and vegetable fields and without fly controls in place. All experimental designs were of complete 

randomised blocks both across and within sites. Treatments were spaced at least 15m apart and 15m from the 

orchard edge. 

Following guidance from the Mauritian National Fruit Fly Programme, square blocks were made of 

approximately 5×5×1.4cm commercial plywood, soaked in a mixture of 95% ethyl alcohol solvent (obtained 

locally), technical methyl eugenol (International Pheromone Systems Ltd) and “Fifinone” malathion in a v:v:v 

ratio of 6:4:1. Blocks were soaked for twelve days and allowed to dry for approximately six. 

The first experiment compared the soaked MAT blocks with the plastic traps currently in use, replicated 

four times in each of the three zones. Traps were standard plastic cylinder traps with cotton swab wicks soaked 

in methyl eugenol alone, as recommended and practised by farmers. Those flies in traps were considered to 

represent the total number of flies they attracted and killed; those killed by blocks were modelled from data from 

the three tiered collectors as described above. 

The second experiment compared the doses of the components of the soaking mixture, by adjusting the 

quantities of each of the three components separately, replicated once in each of the three zones. The third 

experiment, replicated seven times in two zones, compared blocks of different woods, comparing inexpensive 

types potentially suitable for farmer use - plywood, acacia, mulberry and poplar. The fourth experiment, replicated 

11 times in the three zones, compared plywood blocks of similar surface area but different shapes, as shown in 

Table IV.B.2. 

Table IV.B.2. Dimensions of plywood blocks of different shapes compared for MAT. 

Shape Square Oblong Hexagon Circle 

Dimensions (cm) 5×5 7×3.5 5.5 across 

(face to face) 

5.5 diameter 

Area (cm 2 ) 25.00 24.50 26.20 23.76 

Edge length (cm) 20.00 21.00 19.05 17.28 

BAT research was conducted in the same locality, but MAT research was conducted in a variety of 

regions, localities, seasons and years, together termed “sites”. There were often significant differences between 

sites separated in time and space, and these were attributed to expected natural variation among locations, 

seasons and years. The use of complete randomised block experimental designs, with all experimental treatments 

comp ared at every site, was intended to allow differences between sites to be disregarded, and these are not 

itemised or discussed even when significant. (Interaction between sites and treatments, on the other hand, is of 

importance in implying that treatments work better in some sites than in others; in the event no such interaction 

was significant). 

Results 

Data are summarised as single means and standard deviations (S.D.) of all replicates (pooling sites when 

separate); analysis was by analyses of variance (ANOVA); unplanned comparisons of pairs of means followed 

the T-method of minimum significant differences (MSD) using studentised ranges (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995). 

55

The decline of catches with distance from the killing point, calculated as in Table IV.B.1, did often depart 

significantly from the exponential model, but with no clear indication of a better alternative. Deviations from the 

model were calculable for only four of the experiments below, analysed in every case as total catches added up 

over the duration of the experiment. In the comparison of BAT with different baits and applicators, of the forty 

experimental cells none significantly departed from the model; of the comparison of MAT with blocks and with 

traps, of twelve cells five significantly departed from the model (P

Table IV.B.4. Mean total catches (N=5) of B. dorsalis after ten days by differing strengths of protein 

hydrolysate solution. All treatments differed significantly from each other in total catch (one-way ANOVA 

F=76.9357[3,15]***; MSD=5.5 at P

Table IV.B.7. Total catches (N=5) of B. dorsalis after five days under areas treated with commercial and homemade 

baits (protein hydrolysate and meat broth) and applications (sprayer and brush), analysed by a three-way 

replicated ANOVA. No interactions were significant. 

Total catch (No.) Persistence (days) 

Application Flies Bait CommHomeCommHomeercialmadeercialmade Sprayer Males Mean 6.4 5.8 7.1 8.3 

S.D. ±3.4 ±2.3 ±4.6 ±4.8 

Females Mean 3.0 1.6 5.6 4.6 

S.D. ±2.4 ±0.9 ±1.7 ±1.3 

Brush 

F 

Total Mean 9.4 7.4 5.9 6.0 

S.D. ±5.0 ±2.8 ±1.9 ±1.6 

Males Mean 7.2 5.2 8.6 4.6 

S.D. ±1.5 ±2.7 ±5.4 ±2.7 

Females Mean 3.2 2.2 5.9 3.7 

S.D. ±1.9 ±1.3 ±1.9 ±1.5 

Total Mean 10.4 7.4 6.1 6.2 

S.D. ±2.5 ±1.9 ±1.6 ±2.0 

Bait 3.2808[1,32]ns 1 0.4539[1,32]ns 

Application 0.1312[1,32]ns 1.9857[1,32]ns 

Sex 27.9737[1,32]*** 4.3073[1,32]ns 

1: P

Table IV.B.9. Catches over four to five weeks of four plastic traps and four soaked blocks in each of three 

zones, as total catches and projected persistence until daily catch fell below one fly. Statistical analysis was by 

two-way replicated ANOVA: blocks were significantly superior to traps in estimated total mortality but not in 

estimated persistence. 

Sum (No.) Persistence (days) 

Trap Block Trap Block 

Mean 107.7 448.4 124.4 280.7 

S.D. ±30.8 ±181.6 ±70.1 ±366.8 

F Treatments 49.1629[1,18]*** 1.9990[1,18]ns 

Sites 3.1032[2,18]ns 0.4243[2,18]ns 

Interaction 1.0682[2,18]ns 1.0351[2,18]ns 

The second evaluation, of soaking doses, did not feature lower collectors for calibration. Collectors 

were emptied daily. Table IV.B.10 shows the mean central collector catches obtained, with variations in the levels 

of alcohol, methyl eugenol and malathion. 

Table IV.B.10. Collector catches in three zones after 27 days by mixes of solvent:lure:insecticide, with original 

6:4:1 mixture underlined and individual changed values in bold italics. Analysis was by two-way unreplicated 

ANOVA. 

Variable Total catch (No.) Persistence (days) 

Solvent Mixture 4:4:1 6:4:1 8:4:1 4:4:1 6:4:1 8:4:1 

Mean 809.7 818.7 849.7 65.5 53.4 62.1 

S.D. ±109.9 ±202.1 ±23.7 ±6.9 ±3.1 ±2.5 

Lure Mixture 6:2:1 6:4:1 6:6:1 6:2:1 6:4:1 6:6:1 

Mean 774.7 818.7 887.3 59.6 53.4 73.5 

S.D. ±40.1 ±202.1 ±335.2 ±2.5 ±3.1 ±19.0 

Insecticide Mixture 6:4:1 6:4:2 6:4:3 6:4:1 6:4:2 6:4:3 

Mean 818.7 785.0 757.0 53.4 65.9 59.6 

S.D. ±202.1 ±101.3 ±20.8 ±3.1 ±2.5 ±9.0 

F 

Mixtures 0.3464[6,12]ns 1.5811[6,12]ns 

Zones 4.0413[2,12]* 0.8421[2,12]ns 

The third evaluation, of blocks of different wood substrates, was run for only four days, and as a result 

persistence could not be estimated and the four days’ data were pooled. Table IV.B.11 gives the percentages of 

total catch estimates in the central collector for each wood and Table IV.B.12 gives their total kill estimates. 

Table IV.B.11. Percentage of total kill estimates in central collectors, from wood substrate experiment, over 

four days in seven traps in two sites. Overall mean was 79.3% (S.D.=19.5). There was no significant difference 

among woods (one-way ANOVA F=0.2597[3,24]ns). 

Wood Plywood Acacia Mulberry Poplar 

Mean (%) 81.0 80.2 79.0 76.8 

S.D. ±17.4 ±17.6 ±19.0 ±24.0 

Table IV.B.12. Total kill estimates (N=7 in two zones) by blocks of four woods in four days. Among all four 

woods there was a significant difference (one-way ANOVA F=6.0932[3,24]**); individual means with different 

suffix letters were different at P

Table IV.B.13. Percentages of total estimated kill caught by central collectors in the fourth comparison (of 

block shapes) in 11 replicates at four sites. Overall these averaged 78.9% (S.D.=9.0). Averages for each block 

over all 11 replicates were not significantly different (one-way ANOVA F=0.3320[3,40]ns). For five replicates 

of over four days, the percentages were least-squares-regressed against weeks elapsed and these slopes did not 

significantly differ between block shapes (one-way ANOVA F=0.5216[3,16]ns), nor from an expected slope of 0 

(related t=0.6320[19]ns). 

Shape Square Oblong Hexagon Circle 

Mean (%) 79.9 79.9 79.3 76.5 

S.D. ±6.4 ±8.6 ±8.8 ±12.1 

Table IV.B.14. Total fly catches and estimated persistence of four blocks of different shapes, in eleven 

replicates in six experiments, and compared by two-way unreplicated ANOVA of treatments and replications. 

Means with differing suffix letters differed at P=0.05 (MSD=148.0). 

Shape Catch (No.) (N=11) Persistence (days) (N=5) 

Square Oblong Hexagon Circle Square Oblong Hexagon Circle 

Mean 968.8a 929.3a 782.5b 733.6b 88.8 79.3 64.8 72.0 

S.D. ±816.0 ±788.3 ±683.4 ±642.0 ±42.9 ±44.0 ±25.1 ±22.4 

F 8.6490[3,30]*** 0.8918[3,12]ns 

Discussion and Conclusion 

In BAT control males were caught in significantly larger numbers than females. All the artificial 

substrate surfaces tried - sawn timber, plastic or cotton - were significantly less effective than natural vegetation. 

The bait concentration of 30ml.l -1 was superior to both stronger and weaker alternatives. Brush application was 

the equal of sprayers - an important finding for small-farmer crop protection, where often access to a sprayer is 

the limiting factor (Stonehouse, 1995). Home-made bait had 65.7% of the effectiveness of commercial hydrolysate 

but did not decline to inactivity any faster. This compares with a percentage performance of the same mixtures 

tested against B. cucurbitae in the laboratory of 68.7% (Stonehouse et al., 2002). A future study might see 

whether the same percentage kill as with protein hydrolysate may be obtained by a home-made meat mix by 

increasing the dose of the latter by 100/70=1.43 times - if so, the resulting recipe may be an attractive control 

option for on-farm fruit fly control. As a bait, however, meat preparations have drawbacks, particularly poor 

keeping properties, unacceptability to vegetarians such as in India, the likelihood of attracting non-pest nuisance 

carrion flies such as muscids and, most serious, the risk of accidental poisoning by a pest management 

preparation made in a similar way to a food product. 

MAT by soaked wooden blocks attracted and killed over four times more male fruit flies than the plastic 

traps currently in use in Pakistan. The currently recommended soaking mixture was as good as both stronger and 

weaker alternatives. For block construction, plywood was better than two potential alternative woods. Square 

and oblong blocks were better than round or hexagonal. There may be a positive association between 

performance and edge length, as has also been suggested by findings of the Indian Ocean Regional Fruit Fly 

Programme (Aruna Manrakhan, pers. comm.). If so, this may be because it is from the edges, where the ends of 

xylem channels open to the air, that most material is emitted. It may be worthwhile in future to assess shapes with 

longer edge lengths per unit surface area, such as triangles and parallelograms. The roles played in the decline of 

catches over time by decays in insecticide, lure and actual local fly populations has not been explored by this 

study but is important - for example blocks whose insecticide has decayed but whose lure remains active may 

draw pests into a treated field. The relative persistence of the attractant and insecticide components of bait and 

lure mixtures is a priority for future studies. 

More generally, this work has shown that it is possible to “industrialise” field comparisons of bait 

spots, to allow a large number of different options to be compared quickly and efficiently. This opens the 

possibility of rapid analysis of large numbers of candidate home-made controls to lower costs for farmers. 

According to estimates, the central collector caught 50 to 83% of flies killed by MAT and 37% of those killed by 

BAT, without any systematic bias to control treatment or time elapsed. The lower central collector catch 

frequencies for BAT than for MAT are attributed to the large area of BAT killing points, as patches of liquid 

spread on foliage, relative to the compact wood blocks of MAT. Differences among experiments are attributed to 

local variations in the vertical distances between collector rims. Constancy of the representation of total mortality 

by central collector catch may not always be assumed: different insecticides, in particular, may have different 

knock-down speeds and so produce total mortalities represented by different fractional collector catches. 

60

Many improvements may be made to the methods described. First, catching apertures on the same 

horizontal level will reduce the need for the correction for descending collectors, which is thought to have led to 

many difficulties in the interpretation of the results above. Second, the lack of species identification is a 

shortcoming, and the preservation of specimens for identification would be facilitated if collectors had floors of 

mesh or similar to allow rainwater to drain out. Third, more information about the functional relationship of catch 

and distance would be obtained by the use of a finer grid of sampling distances (i.e. more than three). With these 

improvements, future studies might assess further options of different lures, baits and applications. 


Thanks are due to Dr David Huggett, the farmers who hosted experiments in their orchards, and those 

researchers named for personal communications in the text. This document is an output from a project funded by 

the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing countries (R6924 and 

R7447, Crop Protection Programme). The work of this project provided the winning entry for the DFID Renewable 

Natural Resources Research Strategy Annual Award Scheme, 2000. The views are not necessarily those of DFID, 

and all errors remain the responsibility of the authors. 

61

Appendix IV.C. Farm Field Assessments of Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan: 

Distribution, Damage and Control 

John Stonehouse a *, Riaz Mahmood b , Ashraf Poswal b , John Mumford c , Karim Nawaz Baloch d , Zafar Mahmood 

Chaudhary e , Arif Hamid Makhdum f , Ghulam Mustafa g and David Huggett c 

a Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Imperial College of Science, Technology and 

Medicine, University of London, Royal School of Mines, London SW7 2BP 

b CABI Regional Bioscience Centre, PO Box 8, Rawalpindi, Punjab, Pakistan 

c Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Silwood Park, Ascot SL5 7PY 

d Agricultural Extension Service, Dera Ismail Khan, NWFP, Pakistan 

e Agriculture Extension Department, Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab, Pakistan 

f CABI Bioscience, Mardan, NWFP, Pakistan 

g Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan 


Crop Protection – 21 (2002): 661-9 

Abstract 

The abundance and distribution of fruit fly infestation in melon, guava, jujube and mango were assessed in 

farmers’ fields, under different control regimes, in four areas of Pakistan. Larval distribution was not clustered 

among trees but was highly clustered among fruit. The mean number of larvae per infested fruit was not constant, 

and was not significantly less variable than the infestation rate. In comparisons of Bait Application Technique 

(BAT) with farmer controls, in melon, average season-end fruit infestation was 29% in unprotected fields and 5% 

in those protected by BAT; in guava infestation was 44% in unprotected orchards and 12% in orchards 

protected by BAT; in jujube, infestation was 16% in unprotected orchards and 4% in those protected by BAT. 

Fifteen farmer-managed trials found BAT-treated melon fields yielded 37% more than unprotected and farmers 

reported considerable satisfaction. Soaked-block Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) was compared with farmer 

practices of no control: average infestation before harvest was 9% in unprotected plots and 0 in those protected. 

Additional to differences in infestation rate, protected melon fields produced 17% higher yields of all fruit, and 

protected guava orchards had 20% more fruit on trees, relative to those fallen, suggesting that fly attack 

stimulated fruit drop, and loss estimates based on percentage infestation of sampled fruit may be underestimates. 

If these reductions in infestation are extrapolated to loss estimates for Pakistan as a whole, the gross annual 

saving inferred is 4915 million Pakistan Rupees or US$144.6 million. 

Key words: Pakistan, fruit fly, on-farm controls, BAT, MAT, distribution 

Introduction 

Fruit flies are estimated to cause annual losses to fruit and vegetable farmers in Pakistan of over US$200 

million (Stonehouse et al., 1998). This study aimed to evaluate aspects of their distribution, damage and control, 

using realistic applications in farmers’ fields, and to develop for this a suite of assessment techniques sufficiently 

accurate to quantify fly populations, and sufficiently robust to allow data to be gathered under difficult field 

conditions. 

The study looked at the presence and infestation levels of different species in different crops, and when 

and how quickly infestation built up. The spatial distribution of infestation among trees and fruit was also 

studied. If attack is clustered among trees in “hot spots” in the field, as opposed to randomly or evenly 

distributed, more effort is required to assess infestation, and control efforts may need to be localised. The 

distribution of larvae among fruits affects the relationship between the infestation rate, which is the frequency of 

fruits containing one or more larvae (directly affecting economic because any infested fruit is largely 

unmarketable), and the size of the larval population present, which is the product of the infestation rate and the 

mean number of larvae per infested fruit. Changes in larval population size may result in changes in either or both 

of these component quantities. 

If the distribution of larvae among fruits is random, a change in the size of the total larval population 

would involve changes in both the infestation rate and the number of larvae per infested fruit. If, however, the 

number of larvae per infested fruit is relatively constant (that is, if infestation is clumped), then changes in the 

total larval population would be a direct function of the infestation rate. The relationship between population size 

and economic loss depends on which of these two patterns (or intermediates) occurs. If the mean number of 

larvae per infested fruit remains constant, population control will be directly related to loss reduction. However, if 

it does not remain constant, and the number of larvae per infested fruit is the major determinant of population size 

(and infestation rate relatively constant), then changes in density of larvae overall will not correlate well with 

changes in infestation rate (and therefore economic loss), especially when the mean larval population is above 

one per fruit. In this case control efforts at high infestation levels will produce relatively poor returns, and the 

62

economic damage per fly will be greater at small population sizes than at large ones. Additionally, several control 

studies (e.g. Qureshi et al., 1981, Marwat et al., 1982) have assessed fly control as differences in total 

emergences of pupae per number or mass of fruit: these values can only be converted into infestation rates, and 

thus economic losses, if the distribution of larvae among fruit is known. 

A check was also made on the ability of parapheromone lure traps to convey information about fruit 

infestation. Traps allow the quick and cheap monitoring of fly populations, potentially useful both for general 

population monitoring and for on-farm threshold estimates to deploy controls, but they are difficult to calibrate to 

infestation ((Nasir Uddin et al., 2000b). 

Control research focussed on the potential benefits of the use of Bait Application Technique (BAT) and 

soaked-block Male Annihilation Technique (MAT). Neither of these technique is in farm use in Pakistan. 

BAT deploys spots of protein bait mixed with insecticide; adult insects are attracted to these, feed from 

them and are killed (Rossler, 1989). Per unit surface area, BAT may use less than 10% of the insecticide content of 

cover sprays, and thus is cheaper and less polluting. Bees and parasitoids are not attracted to the protein, and 

deposits may be positioned to minimise exposure of humans and domestic animals. BAT has been successfully 

evaluated in Pakistan (Latif et al., 1987) but not widely adopted. 

MAT exploits the attraction of male fruit flies to parapheromones to eradicate males so that flies cannot 

reproduce (Cunningham, 1989). It involves less expense, insecticide and threat to humans and non-target 

organisms even than BAT. In Pakistan MAT has been shown substantially to reduce fly populations in guava 

(Marwat et al., 1992; Qureshi et al., 1981) and mango (Mohyuddin and Mahmood, 1993). It has hitherto used 

plastic traps containing cotton wicks soaked in lure, which can be expensive, needing regular reloading and 

emptying, and vulnerable to sunlight, wind and theft; these shortcomings can be remedied if traps are replaced 

by wooden blocks soaked in lure and insecticide which can be nailed or hung in trees - male flies are attracted to 

the blocks, feed from their surfaces and are killed. In Mauritius, a block programme has successfully maintained 

low levels of flies over large areas (Permalloo et al., 2001). 

Materials and Methods 

Fruit and flies were sampled on farms from a variety of zones, farms, years and seasons, together 

labelled “sites”, around Rahim Yar (RY) Khan (28 o 24'N, 70 o 19'E, by ZC) and Faisalabad (31 o 22'N, 73 o 3'E, by GM), in 

the Punjab, and Mardan (34 o 13'N, 72 o 4'E, by AM) and Dera Ismail (DI) Khan (31 o 51'N, 70 o 56'E, by KB), in the 

North West Frontier Province. The four are spread over an area of over 100 000Km 2 . 

BAT and MAT were deployed on farms for comparison with farmer controls under field conditions (in 

fact all no-control, with the sole exception of guavas in Mardan, protected by cover sprays of insecticide). BAT 

was assessed in guava (Psidium guajava; DI Khan, 1998, two farms; RY Khan, 1998, two farms; Mardan, 1998, 

one farm; fields between one and five Ha), jujube (Ziziphus jujuba; DI Khan, 1998, one farm, and 1999, one farm, 

Faisalabad, 1999, one farm; fields between 0.4 and 4.5Ha) and melon (Cucumis melo; RY Khan, 1999, two farms; 

DI Khan, 1999, two farms; Faisalabad, 1999, one farm; fields between 0.4 and 5.5Ha). Soaked-block MAT was 

evaluated on mango (Mangifera indica) in RY Khan in 1999 on four farms (fields between 2.4 and 6.0Ha). Two 

other crops - persimmon (Diospyros virginiana; Mardan, 1998, one farm) and luffa (Luffa aegyptiaca; RY Khan, 

1998, two farms) - were evaluated but trials discontinued after late starts and small sample sizes indicated few 

useful results could be expected. 

The study served as both a survey of loss levels and distributions and a comparative trial of control 

technologies. Fieldwork encountered difficult conditions, relying on public transport for field visits, and at risk to 

larval mortality in rearing laboratories whose temperature and humidity could not be controlled, and to the loss of 

crops to other causes such as drought and the theft of fruit (and equipment) from fields. As a result, the datagathering 

process was intended to be as robust as possible, with overlapping use of different assessment 

methods to back each other up. A standardized research data set was developed to allow both the comparison of 

controls and farm-by-farm evaluation of distribution. Data gathering was facilitated when in 1999 loose data 

record sheets were replaced with purpose-written comb -bound data books of empty tables for the recording of all 

variables from one field in one season, together with a manual for filling in the data books, with worked examples. 

Similarly, data analysis was facilitated by the development of a standard spreadsheet template of statistical 

operations, laid out to mirror the data sheets, onto which field data could be copied for standardised processing. 

Experimental controls were deployed by farmers or researchers. BAT sprays were of a preparation of 3ml 

of malathion 57% a.i. E.C. (“Fifinone” obtained locally) and 30ml of commercial protein (International Pheromone 

Systems Ltd, Ellesmere Port, South Wirral, CH65 4TY, UK. ips_ltd@btconnect.com) in 1l of water, applied in 

discrete spots at a rate of 7.5l.Ha -1 . Application was by farmers or researchers depending on circumstances, with 

standard lever-operated knapsack sprayers. Following guidance from the Mauritian National Programme, MAT 

blocks were of 5x5cm squares of 1.2cm thickness commercial plywood, soaked in a mixture of 95% ethanol 

solvent obtained locally, technical methyl eugenol (International Pheromone Systems Ltd) and malathion 

(“Fifinone”) in a v:v:v ratio of 6:4:1. Blocks were soaked for approximately twelve days, allowed to dry for 

63

approximately six, and hung in trees. In order to reassure farmers, who pointed out that unlike traps blocks 

provide no direct evidence of killing flies, cotton bags, their mouths held open by wire rings, were hung below 

some blocks to demonstrate that they kill flies. 

Each farm evaluation was in a single field. Each of these was divided into two halves treated differently, 

and all analyses were carried out in each half. Sampling was sequential by successive visits to plots to allow 

assessment of the development of infestation over time. Fruit ripen over a period of time, and are harvested 

sequentially, with ripe fruit removed at each pass. All fields were assessed once, as close as possible to the main 

harvest. Some others, as access and resources permitted, were also visited at other points in the harvesting 

season. Fly records from successive visits were combined to obtain overall values by deriving means of fly 

damage weighted in each case by the quantity of fruit harvested at that point in time. Some fields, in addition, 

were sampled very early in the season, to check that the two halves to be treated differently did not differ 

significantly in their fly populations before treatments started. Each field assessment had several components, as 

follows. 

The first was of the volume of harvested fruit. Relative to the assessment of fruit infestation, 

quantifications of harvested yield have the disadvantage of being more prone to non-treatment fluctuations in 

uncontrolled variables (e.g. fertility and water) but the advantage of being most easily converted to farm income 

and so offering the best indication of likely control impacts on livelihoods. Harvests were assessed and recorded 

by farmers or researchers as weights or counts of fruit, along with prevailing prices in Pakistan Rupees (Rs). 

In 1999 there was also a series of farmer-managed trials, assessed by harvested yield alone, of BAT for 

melon fly control, to obtain comparisons across a large number of farms, to complement the detailed trials. In the 

arid area around Kulachi, 40km west of DI Khan, bait mixture and training in its use were given to fifteen farmers 

for evaluation in protected and unprotected plots, and records made of farmers’ estimates of yields and returns. 

Second, the density of fruit production was assessed on each of five trees (or, in the case of melons, 

“clumps” of plants in areas 2mx2m) in each treated field half. Melon density was estimated by three randomlythrown 

square-metre quadrats in each clump. Tree fruit numbers were estimated or counted by eye on each of the 

five trees sampled; for each tree this number was divided by a simple estimate of tree volume, obtained by 

multiplying its height by the area beneath it, to estimate the density of fruit per cubic metre of canopy. Fruit on 

the ground were counted in three randomly-thrown square-metre quadrats beneath each tree, and the average of 

these, as a mean value per m 2 , divided by the tree’s estimated height to obtain an estimate of fallen fruit per m 3 of 

canopy. Fruit counts were divided into the simple ordinal classes of 1=formation, 2=growing, 3=ripening and 

4=ripe. 

Third, two parapheromone lure traps were also deployed in each treated field half. 

Fourth, infestation of fruit was assessed by three methods. Formal samples of susceptible fruit were 

taken from each treated portion of a field at various points in the season, the main sample being as near as 

possible before the main harvest. Each comprised 30 fruit, as six fruit, ripe enough to be attacked, from each of 

the five sampled trees or melon clumps, from trees themselves and (except in melons) from the ground beneath. 

First (method i), fruit were inspected and classified into those unblemished, apparently oviposited, apparently 

exit-holed and rotting. Subsequently (method ii) the gathered fruit were kept for the collection of emerging flies, 

in shaded, cool rooms (checked by maximum-minimum thermometers), in individual containers, to allow the 

quantification of larval distribution among fruit and of numbers of fruit infested. Fruit were placed on sand, which 

was regularly sieved for emerged pupae, which were then transferred to glass phials stoppered with cotton wool 

to await the emergence of adults for identification. Adults were fed and watered (to allow colours to develop), 

then killed, identified and mounted in a permanent collection (C.O. RM). Additionally (method iii), the counts of 

fruit harvested were categorised into pristine, fly-attacked and not visibly attacked but spoiled by rot. 

The three approaches to fruit infestation assessment were intended to complement each other by 

balancing precision and robustness: the formal samples (i, ii) were relatively small (30 fruit) and taken not at 

harvest but before, whereas harvest assessments (iii) were of the whole harvest taken as it was gathered; visual 

damage assessments by farmers (iii) and researchers (i) are essentially subjective, give no identification of fly 

species, and are uncertain indicators of fly attack (oviposition punctures can resemble other blemishes; exit-holes 

can resemble bird and beetle attacks) but the rearing of larvae from fruit (ii) while objective and certain, lacks 

robustness in field conditions where collection, transport and storage may affect larval mortality. These 

advantages and disadvantages are summarised in Table IV.C.1. 

64

Table IV.C.1. Fruit infestation assessment methods scored by criteria of advantage 

(1=low; 2=intermediate; 3=high). 

Criterion Sample Sample Farmer 

inspection larva harvest 

rearing estimate 

Sample size 1 1 3 

Proximity to harvest 1 1 3 

Objectivity 2 3 1 

Species identification 0 3 0 

Robustness 2 1 3 

Results 

Throughout, data are summarised as unadjusted means and standard deviations (S.D.); statistical 

analysis was generally by related t test or analysis of variance (ANOVA), after data normalisation by the arcsine 

transformation in the case of data as frequencies or percentages (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995). 

Table IV.C.2 gives infestation levels in unprotected plots, including some where no experimental results 

were obtained and are not discussed below, together with the overall estimates of Stonehouse et al. (1998), with 

which they seem to be in overall broad agreement. No parasitoid was found in any fruit or trap. Trimedlure traps 

deployed near Islamabad airport and the main road to the NWFP and Khyber Pass caught no Ceratitis capitata 

or other insect. 

Table IV.C.2. Mean percentage infestation of fruit by flies in various zones (by pupal emergence unless 

specified) in the absence of controls. Species were unknown where larvae emerged but not adults. Also included 

(as “Survey”) are the comparable overall Pakistan loss estimates by Stonehouse et al. (1998). 

Crop Location Year Species Infestation (%) 

Melon DI Khan 1999 Bactrocera cucurbitae 50 

Melon RY Khan 1999 Bactrocera cucurbitae 23 

Melon Faisalabad 1999 None 0 

Melon Kulachi 1999 Bactrocera cucurbitae 1 37 2 

Melon Survey Several All 35 

Guava (summer) DI Khan 1998 Bactrocera zonata 80 

Guava (summer) RY Khan 1998 Bactrocera zonata 11 

Guava (summer) Mardan 1998 Bactrocera zonata 14 

Guava (winter 3 ) RY Khan 1998 None 0 

Guava (overall 4 ) Survey Several All 35 

Jujube DI Khan 1998 Unknown 3 

Jujube DI Khan 1999 Carpomyia vesuviana 45 

Jujube Faisalabad 1999 None 0 

Jujube Survey Several All 15 

Mango RY Khan 1999 Bactrocera zonata 9 

Mango Survey Several All 15 

Persimmon Mardan 1998 Bactrocera zonata 11 

Persimmon Survey Several All 40 

Luffa RY Khan 1998 Unknown >15 

Plum Peshawar 1999 Bactrocera dorsalis 1 23 5 

Plum Peshawar Survey All 35 

1 Identification inferred from trap catches although no adults were reared. 

2 Difference in mean yield weight between treated and untreated plots (Table IV.C.5, below) - not a strict record of infestation. 

3 Result from a single winter fruit sample to check the common view that the winter guava crop is largely unattacked. 

4 Stonehouse et al. (1998) did not distinguish summer and winter guava crops. 

5 Figure from another study in this project (Hai, 2001); fruit were not collected, but identified as attacked on the tree. 

Sequential samples taken after the development of ripe fruit allowed the assessment of the development 

of infestation rates through the harvesting period, and the observation of how infestation, as the average of 

treated and untreated plots, may build up. In two melon plots, when ripening fruit frequency was 46 and 52% of 

final, infestation was 76% and 186% of final. In four guava plots, when ripening fruit frequency was between 27 

and 73% of final, infestation was between 12% and 1467% of final. In two jujube plots, when ripeness was 62 and 

68% of final, infestation was 50 and 113% of final. In one mango field, when ripeness was 83% of final, infestation 

was 50% of final. These data were inadequate for statistical analysis, but are sufficient to show that levels of 

65

attack, at intermediate stages of fruit development, can be highy variable and that it cannot be assumed that 

attack is restricted to later periods so that, at least in the absence of a monitoring system, protection of fruit 

should be recommended to begin as soon as attack can begin. 

The distribution of fly infestation among trees and melon clumps was not clustered. Nested ANOVAs 

compared variation in infestation between the five sampled trees (or melon clumps) in each treated half of each 

field, relative to that among fruit on the same tree or clump (six fruit on each). On-tree and fallen fruit were 

assessed separately. Of 44 data sets with enough data to be useable, only one (of guavas) showed a significant 

difference between trees (F=2.8721[4,25]*); among the other 43, 35 F values were unity or less. 

Infestation was significantly clustered among fruit. Observed distributions were compared by 

Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests with Poisson distributions, with on-tree and fallen fruit assessed separately, and the 

two differently-treated halves of each field pooled to obtain a spread of different infestation levels (N=60 in all 

cases). In the four mango fields, none of the samples on trees significantly departed from the Poisson (between 

D=0.0162 and D=0.1592) but all of the samples in fallen fruit did so (between D=0.2666*** and D=0.2780***). Of 

the 18 useable data sets among the other fruits, two did not depart significantly from the Poisson model (one of 

guava D=0.1082 and one of jujube D=0.0006) but the other 16 did, 11 of them at the level P

factors (ecoregion, year, season, weather, surrounding vegetation, random fluctuations), these differences are 

not discussed. The catching bags suspended below some blocks demonstrated that they were indeed killing 

flies, with up to several hundred dead in each bag at the end of the season. 

Generally, harvested yields were recorded by fruit number, weight and value (at local prices) on each 

plot, per unit area for adjustment to hectares. Differences between treatments were least significant in cash value, 

attributed to small sale values of attacked fruit for use in pickles, chutneys and similar in some areas. More 

reliable effects were found among fruit numbers, but most reliable among fruit weights - this latter difference may 

be due to higher weights of individual fruit in protected plots, although this was not statistically demonstrated. 

Table IV.C.4 shows the wieght yield of all melons from the five researcher-managed trials. In other fruits harvest 

volumes did not significantly differ (not all data were obtained from guavas and jujubes). 

Table IV.C.4. Yield (Kg.ha -1 ) of all (pristine and blemished) melons harvested from five researcher-managed 

comparisons across Pakistan. The difference was statistically significant (related t=3.9962[4]*). The mean 

yield increase attributed to BAT was 17%. 

Control BAT None 

Mean (Kg.ha -1 ) 5646 4832 

S.D. ±9586 ±823 

Table IV.C.5 shows the outcome from the farmer-managed trial at Kulachi. On none of the fifteen farms 

did the application fail to recover its estimated costs (Mahmood et al., 2001), and all farmers expressed 

themselves favourable to BAT and keen to obtain a source of bait supply. Kulachi is, however, fly-infested and 

short of water for cover sprays, and thus may be better favoured for BAT use than the country overall. 

Table IV.C.5. Yield (Kg.ha -1 ) of unblemished melons from fifteen farmer-managed comparisons at Kulachi, 

NWFP. The difference was statistically significant (related t=7.2087[14]***). The inferred yield increase by 

BAT was 37%, totalling 728kg.ha -1 , leading with a melon price of Rs8Kg -1 and BAT costs of Rs450ha -1 , to a 

net gain of Rs5375ha -1 or US$158ha -1 at an exchange rate of US$1=Rs34. 

Control BAT None 

Mean (Kg.ha -1 ) 2738 2010 

S.D. ±457 ±447 

Additional to harvested yield, estimates were made of production of fruit on trees and vines. Density of 

melons in square-metre quadrats did not significantly differ among treatments (mean in BAT plots was 17.7, in 

unprotected plots 14.8, with S.D.s of respectively 11.4 and 9.0, related t=2.2448[4], P=0.088). Absolute levels of 

production are variable among trees, obscuring differences due to treatments. This problem was addressed by 

assessing not absolute fruit numbers but the relative abundance of tree fruit and fallen fruit below the same trees, 

in the hope that the use of this ratio might cancel out tree-tree variability and distinguish trees in their tendency 

to shed fruit. These ratios are shown in Table IV.C.6, and suggest that the ratio of on-tree fruit to fallen fruit was 

higher in protected than unprotected orchards, implying that fly attack may stimulate the fall of fruit from trees. 

Table IV.C.6. Percentages of all fruit present (on-tree and fallen) represented by those on-tree as opposed to 

fallen, both per estimated cubic metre of tree canopy. In guavas, though not the others, the ratio was 

significantly greater in BAT than unprotected plots (related t=4.2619*[4]). The increase in guava density 

attributed to BAT was 20%. 

Fruit Guava (N=5) Jujube (N=2) Mango (N=4) 

Protection BAT None BAT None MAT None 

Mean (%) 49 40 96 87 56 53 

S.D. ±26 ±30 ±4 ±14 ±36 ±34 

Fruit ripening was evaluated by comparing the percentage of all fruit present on trees and vines which 

fell into the latter two of the four ordinal ripening classes, “ripening” and “ripe”, as shown in Table IV.C.7. 

67

Table IV.C.7. Percentage of all on-tree fruit classed as “ripening” and “ripe”. In melons, though not the 

others, the ratio was significantly greater in BAT than unprotected plots (related t=3.4587[3]*). 

Fruit Melon (N=4) Guava (N=5) Jujube (N=2) Mango (N=5) 

Protection BAT None BAT None BAT None MAT None 

Mean (%) 72 70 69 68 62 69 76 75 

S.D. ±30 ±31 ±26 ±26 ±19 ±15 ±28 ±30 

Parapheromone trap catch data are given in Table IV.C.8. On some plots traps were stolen, and on 

others plot sizes were too small to allow trap deployment without mutual interference. There were no statistically 

significant differences due to treatments. 

Table IV.C.8. Mean numbers of flies caught in traps among fruit sites. Traps were baited with cue-lure among 

melons and methyl eugenol elsewhere . There were no significant differences due to treatments. 

Melon (N=2) Guava (N=5) Jujube (N=1) Mango (N=1) 

Protection BAT None BAT None BAT None MAT None 

Mean (No.) 3 4 708 1708 8 3 15 2 

S.D. ±1 ±0 ±609 ±1787 - - - - 

Data from assessment by pupal rearing (method i) and by inspection of sampled fruit (ii) are presented in 

Tables IV.C.9 to IV.C.12. Analysis was by ANOVA (of arcsine-transformed data) in two dimensions (for arable 

melons, among treatments and sites) or three (for orchard fruits, additionally between fruit on-tree and fallen, 

called “locations”). (As a check on the economically important category, these incidences were also compared 

for on-tree fruit alone by related t tests; these obtained significance levels similar to the ANOVA results and are 

not presented). In three of five melon plots, one of five guava plots and one of three jujube plots, an initial 

assessment, when ripening fruit was less than 5%, was made to check for differences in infestation before 

treatments began; Fisher exact contingency tests found no significant differences. 

Table IV.C.9. Percentage fly infestation of melons shortly before harvest in five sites, with BAT protection and 

none, and assessed by pupal emergence and fly mark records. The inferred reduction in infestation by BAT was 

84%. 

Indicator: Pupae Marks 

Output Protection: BAT None BAT None 

Infestation Mean 4.7 29.3 26.3 49.3 

(%) S.D. ±5.6 ±26.9 ±24.9 ±28.6 

ANOVA F Treatments 10.6262[1,4]* 4.7660[1,4]ns 

Sites 4.5009[4,4]ns 7.4730[4,4]* 

Table IV.C.10. Infestation of guava fruit from fives sites, as in Table IV.C.9 and among fruit in the “locations” 

of on the tree and fallen to the ground. No interactions were significant except that between locations and sites 

by marks (F=23.1455[4,4]**). The inferred reduction in infestation by BAT was 73%. 



Infestation Tree Mean 11.6 43.7 26.2 53.0 

(%) 

S.D. ±10.2 ±35.0 ±9.6 ±28.5 

Ground Mean 16.4 45.5 56.0 75.1 

S.D. ±10.0 ±31.8 ±21.7 ±13.7 

ANOVA F Treatments 26.3165[1,4]** 63.6634[1,4]** 

Locations 0.8965[1,4]ns 79.6435[1,4]*** 

Sites 99.3364[4,4]* 4.2473[4,4]ns 

Table IV.C.11. Infestation of jujube fruit from three sites, as in Table IV.C.10. Among pupae there were 

significant interactions between treatments and sites (F=81.6134[2,2]*) and locations and sites 

(F=54.1577[2,2]*). The inferred decrease in infestation by BAT was 76%. 



68

Infestation 

(%) 

ANOVA F 

Tree Mean 3.9 16.1 30.6 44.4 

S.D. ±4.2 ±25.1 ±24.3 ±36.6 

Ground Mean 8.9 17.8 33.9 41.7 

S.D. ±10.2 ±16.8 ±24.3 ±24.7 

Treatments 81.6134[1,2]* 0.3281[1,2]ns 

Locations 21.4615[1,2]* 7.2344[1,2]ns 

Sites 364.8379[2,2]** 7.5350[2,2]*** 

Table IV.C.12. Infestation of mango fruit from four sites, as in Table IV.C.10. No interactions were significant. 

The inferred reduction in infestation by MAT was 100%. 


Output Protection: MAT None MAT None 

Infestation Tree Mean 0.0 10.0 5.0 17.5 

(%) 

S.D. ±0.0 ±7.2 ±1.9 ±11.0 

Ground Mean 4.2 24.2 68.3 73.3 

S.D. ±1.7 ±6.3 ±6.4 ±9.4 

ANOVA F Treatments 211.0847[1,3]*** 36.9901[1,3]** 

Locations 92.1408[1,3]** 1047.3419[1,3]*** 

Sites 6.9911[3,3]ns 15.2315[3,3]* 

Estimates of fruit infestation at harvest (method iii, above) were adequate for analysis only in melons 

and mangoes. The results are given in Table IV.C.13. 

Table IV.C.13. Farmer estimates of percentage loss frequencies among harvests on four mango farms and five 

melon farms. Spoiled mangoes were identified as “fly-attacked”, melons as“fly-attacked” and “spoiled but not 

visibly fly-attacked”. The inferred reduction in all spoiled melons by BAT was 63.6%; that by MAT in attacked 

mangoes was 96%. 

Fruit: Mango Melon 

Symptom: Attacked Attacked Spoiled 

Protection MAT None BAT None BAT None 

Mean (%) 0.3 8.9 0.7 5.3 2.9 4.9 

S.D. ±0.1 ±5.0 ±0.4 ±1.8 ±1.5 ±2.4 

Related t 5.0533[3]* 6.2755[4]** 6.0701[4]** 

Conclusions 

The methodology developed was able to distinguish many important variables. Visible marks were 

recorded on sampled fruits, as a back-up to the more accurate but less robust (in case of larval mortality before 

emergence) record of emerged pupae. Visible mark records were inferior to pupal rearing in the detection of 

infestation differences, but provided some meaningful information, and may be recommended as a back-up when 

there is a risk of loss of pupal emergence data. Estimates of fruit numbers on trees and on the ground were able to 

distinguish different levels of production. 

The number of sites used was only barely adequate. The greater clarity of conclusions from guava and 

melon (on five sites) than from mango and jujube (on respectively four and three) strongly suggests that 

replication levels of at least six plots should be sought in studies of this sort. 

Flies were not clustered among trees or bushes within fields, but were clustered among fruit, although 

the number of larvae per infested fruit was not constant, and not significantly less variable than the infestation 

rate. 

Losses in general were most apparent as infestation levels on trees. There was evidence, however, that 

fruit with heavier fly attack were likely to be less numerous, possibly because more likely to fall from the tree. 

This would make loss estimates derived from infestation rates alone too low, by removing from the sample some 

fruit which are attacked. 

Bait sprays were effective in controlling fruit flies on guava, jujube and melon, and are preferable to 

cover sprays for reasons of cost, safety and environmental contamination. All farmers who hosted trials made 

favourable comments about BAT regarding its effectiveness and its low demands for water and work. 

MAT was able effectively to control fruit flies in mangoes. However, losses may anyway sometimes be 

too low to justify controls. Both BAT and MAT attained control even on small and medium-sized farm plots (0.2 

to 2.0ha). 

69

The potential significance of these results may be estimated by extrapolating the reduction obtained in 

percentage infestation by flies to the loss estimates Pakistan by Stonehouse et al. (1998). This extrapolation is 

problematical, but if accepted with appropriate caveats can estimate the hypothetical potential benefit of a wider 

use of BAT and MAT in Pakistan. Table IV.C.14 gives the outcome of this exercise for the fruit assessed. 

Infestation reductions are taken as the reductions in reared-out larvae obtained in Tables IV.C.9 to IV.C.12. The 

table shows estimates of annual gross savings (not including control costs) for the four crops of Rs4915 million, 

or (at the rate of 1US$=Rs34) $144.6 million. 

Table IV.C.14. Potential gross savings at farm level in Pakistan from overall reductions in fruit fly losses of 

the sizes estimated above. Production, prices and losses of melon, guava and mango (rows marked *) are for 

1994-6, from Table 4 of Stonehouse et al. (1998), and dollar conversion at the then-prevailing rate of 

Rs34:US$1. Jujube production and prices, with no official statistics, are estimates from Pakistan Ministry of 

Agriculture personnel, and jujube losses from Stonehouse et al. Table 3. Production is taken to be after pest 

loss, but loss estimates refer to potential production; so if recorded production is 100 units, and loss estimated 

at 25%, the loss is inferred to be not 25 units but 33.3, i.e. potential production is 133.3 units and 25% of this 

is lost to leave 100. Estimated percentage increases in yield and reductions in infestation are those derived 

above, in the Tables specified. 

Crop Melon Guava Jujube Mango 

Annual production (‘000 MT)* 536 402 18 839 

Unit price (Rs.MT -1 )* 5440 7300 5500 9100 

Production value (Rs million)* 2916 2935 99 7635 

Crop protection BAT BAT BAT MAT 

Experimental yield increase (%) 17 20 0 0 

(Source - Table) (IV.C.4) (IV.C.6) (IV.C.6) (IV.C.6) 

Inferred yield increase value (Rs million) 496 587 0 0 

Percentage overall loss (%)* 35 35 15 15 

Annual loss (Rs million)* 1570 1580 17 1347 

Experimental infestation reduction (%) 84 73 76 100 

(Source - Table) (IV.C.9) (IV.C.10) (IV.C.11) (IV.C.12) 

Inferred infestation reduction value (Rs million) 1319 1154 13 1347 

Total inferred crop protection value (Rs million) 1815 1740 13 1347 

Total inferred crop protection value (US$ million) 53.4 51.2 0.4 39.6 


The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the farmers who gave their fields and time for this 

study - Messrs Qadar Bakhsh, Siddiq-Ur-Rehman, Mian Mohammad Mohsin, Malik Riaz, K.B. Sumro, Mian 

Izhar-Ul-Haq, M. Hanif, Umar Hayat, Qutab Deen, Malik Bashir and Ch. Rehmatullah. Thanks are also in particular 

due to Dr Umar Baloch of the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Mr M. Anwar, Deputy Director 

(Agriculture), RY Khan, and Dr Rehmatullah Khan, Director of the Arid Zone Research Institute, DI Khan. The 

fieldwork at Faisalabad was carried out by Messrs Muhammad Latif and Muhammad Saeed. Mr Abdul Qayyum 

drove the research team to all field sites many times under arduous conditions. This document is an output from 

a project funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for the benefit of developing 

countries (R6924 and R7447, Crop Protection Programme). The work of this project provided the winning entry for 

the DFID Renewable Natural Resources Research Strategy Annual Award Scheme, 2000. The views are not 

necessarily those of DFID, and all errors and omissions remain the responsibility of the authors. 

70

Appendix V. References 

Afzal, M, Mahmood, R, Stonehouse, JM 2001. Soaked-wood killer blocks for MAT fruit fly control in Pakistan. 

Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 97-100. 

Agarwal, ML 1984. Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and their host plants in Bihar. Biological Bulletin of India 6: 

76-82. 

Agarwal, ML 1985. Zoogeography of Indian Dacinae (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of the Bombay Natural 

History Society 83: 256-60. 

Agarwal, ML 1987. On a collection of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) from India. Biological Bulletin of 

India 9: 135-43. 

Agarwal, ML, Kapoor, VC 1985. On a collection of Trypetinae (Diptera: Tephriditidae) from Northern India. 

Annals of Entomology 3: 59-64. 

Agarwal, ML, Kapoor, VC 1986. Indian Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae) and their host plants relationships. 

Cavalloro, R (Ed) Fruit Flies of Economic Importance 84: Proceedings of the CEC/IOBC ‘Ad Hoc 

Meeting’ Hamburg 1984 (Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Balkema): 51-60. 

Agarwal, ML, Kapoor, VC 1988. On a collection of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephriditidae: Tephrellini) from India. 

Bulletin of Entomology 29: 225-8. 

Agarwal, ML, Kumar Pramod 1999a. Effect of weather parameters on population dynamics of peach fruit fly, 

Bactrocera zonata (Saunders). Entomon 24: 81-84. 

Agarwal, ML, Kumar, Pramo d 1999b. Relative efficacy of bait and attractant combinations against Peach Fruit Fly, 

Bactroceral zonata (Saunders). Pestology 33: 21-6. 

Agarwal, ML, Rahman, S, Yazdani, SS 1995. Trapping of Dacus (Bactrocera) zonatus (Saunders) (Diptera: 

Tephritidae) in different trap systems in north Bihar. Shashpa 2: 80-1. 

Agarwal, ML, Yazdani, SS 1991. A note on growth potential of Melon Fruit Fly Dacus (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae 

Coquillett in relation to certain host plants in North Bihar. Journal of Research (BAU) 3: 61-2. 

Aliniazee, MT 1976. Thermal unit requirements for determining adult emergence of the Western cherry fruit fly 

(Diptera: Tephriditidae) in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Environmental Entomology 5: 397-404. 

AME (Agriculture Man Environment) 1999. Markets for LEISA and Organic Products. LEISA India Supplement 

1.1.16pp. 

Anonymous 1988. Annual Report of the Entomologists of Entomology Section, Ayub Agricultural Research 

Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan. 

Anonymous 1999. Obituary: Shri M. Purushothama Rao. LEISA India Supplement 1.1: 16. 

Anonymous undated. Integrated Pest Management for Guava Fruit Fly. Extension sheet, Tamil Nadu. 1p. 

Arora, PK, Batra, RC, Mehrotra, NK, Thind, SK 1998. Screening of some promising guava varieties against fruit 

fly. Reddy, PP, Kumar, NKK, Verghese, A (Eds) Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings 

of the First National Symposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: Environmental 

Implications and Thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15-17 October 1997: 43-44. 

Arora, PK, Kaur, Nirmal, Batra, RC, Mehrotra, NK 1999. Physico chemical characteristics of some ber varieties in 

relation to fruit fly incidence. Journal of Applied Horticulture (Lucknow) 1: 101-102. 

Bagle, BG 1992. Incidence and control of fruit fly Carpomyia vesuviana Costa of ber Zizyphus mauritiana, Lank. 

Indian Journal of Plant Protection 20: 205-207. 

Bagle, BG 1995. Pest management in ber, pomegranate and sapota. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research 

Annual Report 1994-95: 113-4. 







Barnes, BN 2001. Monitoring and control of fruit flies in South African fruit orchards. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 

147-52. 

Bersten, D 1997. Phloxine B - A photoactive insecticide. Pesticide Outlook, October: 20-23. 

Borah, RK 1996. Influence of sowing seasons and varieties on the infestation of fruitfly Bactrocera cucurbitae 

(Dacus cucurbitae) in cucumber in the hill zone of Assam. Indian Journal of Entomology 58: 382-383. 

Borah, SR, Dutta, SK 1997. Infestation of fruit fly in some cucurbitaceous vegetables. Journal of the Agricultural 

Science Society of North East India 10: 128-131. 

71

Bostock Wood, CV, Wise, R 1992.. Trees in Society in Rural Karnataka, India. Chatham Maritime, UK: Natural 

Resources Institute. 223pp. 

CIBC (Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control) c1972. Final Report: Studies on the Ecology of Some 

Important Species of Fruit Flies and Their Natural Enemies in West Pakistan. Rawalpindi: CIBC. 51pp. 

CISH (Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture) 1998. The Mango. Extension bulletin No. 2. 3 rd edition. 

Lucknow: CISH. 37pp. 

Cunningham, RT 1989. Male annihilation. Robinson, AS, Hooper, G (Eds): Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural 

Enemies and Control (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier World Crop Pests 3A&B): 345-51. 

Dale, D, Das, NM, Nair, MRGK 1966. Studies on the residual effect of some insecticides in soil to maggots of the 

melon fly Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett. Agricultural Journal of Kerala 4: 85-8. 

Dale, D, Jiji, T 1997. Pheromone trapping for the management of melon fly. Proceedings of the Ninth Kerala 

Science Congress, January 1997 Thiruvananthapuram: 110. 

Dale, D, Nair, MRGK 1966. Studies on relative toxicity of some insecticides to adults of Dacus cucurbitae 

Coquillett when used in bait sprays. Agricultural Journal of Kerala 4: 74-7. 

Dashad, SS, Chaudhary, OP, Rakesh 1999a. Studies on the incidence of Ber Fruitfly (Carpomyia vesuviana 

Costa) in south western Haryana. Crop Research (Hisar) 18: 115-118. 

Dashad, SS, Chaudhary, OP, Rakesh 1999b. Chemical control of Ber Fruitfly. Crop Research (Hisar) 17: 333-335. 

Deshmukh, RP, Patil, RS 1996. Comparative efficacy of baited and non baited sprays of insecticides and chemical 

attractant against fruit flies infesting ridge gourd. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 21: 

346-349. 

DFID (UK Government Department for International Development) 1999. India: Country Strategy Paper. 

London, UK: DFID. 20pp. 

“Entomologist” 1997. Traps for suppression of fruit flies. SAIC Newsletter (SAARC Agricultural Information 

Centre, Dhaka, Bangladesh) 7.2: 215. 

Enkerlin, W, Mumford, JD 1997. Economic evaluation of three alternative methods for control of the 

Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Israel, Palestinian Territories, and Jordan. Journal of 

Economic Entomology 90: 066-72. 

Escalada, MM, Heong, KL 1997. Methods for research on farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in pest 

management. IRRI: Pest Management of Rice Farmers in Asia (Los Baños, The Phillipines: IRRI): 1-34. 

FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) 2000. FAOSTAT. Database. Rome, Italy: UN Food and Agriculture 

Organisation. http://www.fao.org 

Faroda, AS 1996. Developed resistance to fruit fly in ber through hybridization. ICAR News Science and 

Technology Newsletter 2: 23. 

Franzel, S 1984. Comparing the results of an informal survey with those of a formal survey: a case study of 

farming systems research/extension (FSR/E) in Middle Kirinyaga, Kenya. Farming Systems 

Research/Extension Symposium, Manhattan, Kansas: 1-27. 

Gazit, Y, Roessler, Y 2001. Mediterranean Fruit Fly control in Israel. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 77-9. 

Gladwin, CH 1983. Contributions of decision-tree methodology to a farming systems program. Human 

Organisation 42: 146 57. 

Gow, PL 1954. Protein bait for the oriental fruit fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 47: 153-60. 

Gupta, JN, Verma, AN 1982. Effectivity of fenitrothion bait spray against melon fruit flies, Dacus cucurbitae Coq. 

in bitter gourd. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 16: 41-66. 

Gupta, D, Verma, AK 1995. Host specific demographic studies of the melon fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett 

(Diptera : Tephritidae). Journal of Insect Science 8: 87-89. 

Gupta D, Verma, AK, Gupta, Divender 1992. Population fluctuations of the maggots of fruit flies (Dacus 

cucurbitae Coquillett and D. tau Walker) infesting cucurbitaceous crops. Advances in Plant Sciences 5: 

518-23. 

Hai, MA, Mahmood, R, Stonehouse, JM 2001. Fruit flies in plums in North-West Frontier Province: Development, 

attack and drop. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 87-91. 

Heath, RR, Epsky, ND, Bloem, S, Bloem, K, Acajabon, F, Guzman, A, Chambers, D 1994. pH effect on the 

attractiveness of a corn hydrolysate to the Mediterranean fruit fly and several Anastrepha species 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 87, 1008-13. 

IIHR (Indian Institute of Horticultural Research) Undated A. Integrated pest management on cabbage using 

Indian Mustard as a trap crop. IIHR Extension Folder 33. 6pp. 

IIHR (Indian Institute of Horticultural Research) Undated B. Integrated management of fruit borer on tomato 

with African Marigold as a trap crop. IIHR Extension Folder 53. 6pp. 

Jalaluddin, SM, Natarajan, K, Sadakathulla, S, Balasubramaniyan, S 1999. Discovery of the guava fruit fly 

Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). Entomon 24: 195-196. 

72

Jalaluddin, SM, Natarajan, K, Sadakathulla, S, Rajukkannu, K 1998. Effect of colour, height and dispenser on 

catches of guava fruit fly. Reddy, PP, Kumar, NKK, Verghese, A (Eds): Advances in IPM for 

horticultural crops. Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Pest Management in 

Horticultural Crops: Environmental Implications and Thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15-17 October 1997: 

34-39. 

Jalaluddin, SM, Natarajan, K, Sadakathulla,S, Rajukkannu, K 1998. A carabid predator for guava fruit fly 

Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). Insect Environment 3: 113. 

Jayanthi, PDK, Verghese, A 1998. Hourly trap catch of the mango fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel) using 

methyl eugenol bottle trap. Insect Environment 4: 60. 

Jeffrault, E, Quilici, S, Hurtrel, B 2001. Lutte contre la mouche de la pêche, Bactrocera zonata, à l’Ile de La 

Réunion. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 73-5. 

Joshi, VR, Pawar, DB, Lawande, KE 1995. Effects of different training systems and planting seasons on incidence 

of fruit fly in bitter gourd. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 20: 290-291. 

Kalia, V 1992. Bionomics of fruit fly Dacus dorsalis on some cultivars of mango and guava. Bulletin of 

Entomology (New Delhi) 33: 79-87. 

Kalia, V 1995. Chemical control of oriental fruit fly Dacus dorsalis (Hendel). Indian Journal of Entomology 57: 

68-70. 

Kalia, V, Srivastava, ML 1992. Ovipositional behaviour and development of the oriental fruit fly Dacus (Strumeta) 

dorsalis Hendel on development stages of mango fruit. Bulletin of Entomology (New Delhi) 33: 88-93. 

Kapoor, VC 1989. Indian sub-continent. Robinson, AS, Hooper, G (Eds): Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural 

Enemies and Control. Amsterdam: Elsevier. World Crop Pests 3A&B. 59-62. 

Kapoor, VC 1993. Indian Fruit Flies (Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae). iv+228pp. 

Kapoor, VC, Agarwal, ML, Grewal, JS 1976. Identified Indian fruitflies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in National Pusa 

Collection, India. Bulletin of Entomology 17: 1-15. 

Kapoor, VC, Agarwal, ML, Grewal, JS 1977. Zoogeography of Indian Tephritidae (Diptera). Oriental Insects 11: 

605-21. 

Kaur, S, Sharma, R, Grewal, JS, Kapoor, VC 1993. Scanning electron microscopy in the identification of fruit flies: 

A useful approach in their management. Journal of Insect Science 6: 229-231. 

Khan, L, Inayatullah, C, Ul-Haq, M 1992. Control of melon fly Dacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Trypetidae) on melon in 

Pakistan. Tropical Pest Management 38, 261-4. 

KHDP (Kerala Horticulture Development Programme) 1999. Pioneering Models in Self-Reliance. Kochi, India: 

KHDP. 18pp. 

Koul, VK, Bhagat, KC 1994a. Effect of host plants on the developmental stages of the fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae 

Coquillett. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 2: 8-11. 

Koul, VK, Bhagat, KC 1994b. Biology of melon fruit fly Bactrocera (Dacus) cucurbitae Coquillett (Diptera: 

Tephritidae) on bottle gourd. Pest Management and Economic Zoology 2: 123-125. 

Krishna Moorthy, PN, Krishna Kumar, NK, Selvaraj, C, Daniel, John S 1998. Neem seed kernel applications for 

Diamondback Moth management: Transfer of technology for mechanised farming. Pest Management in 

Horticultural Ecosystems 4: 128-30. 

Krishna Moorthy, PN, Krishna Kumar, NK 2000. Efficacy of neem seed kernel powder extracts on cabbage pests. 

Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 6: 27-31. 

Krishna Moorthy, AS, Rajendran, M, Lakshmanan, P, Muthusankaranarayanan, A 1997. Combined spray 

schedule for the control of ber fruitfly, fruit borer and leafspot disease. Annals of Arid Zone 36: 177-178. 

Kumar, KK 1995. Studies on the major pests of fruit crops and their management in mango. Indian Institute of 

Horticultural Research Annual Report 1994-95: 125-6. 

Kumar, P, Singh, S 1993. Effect of GA3 and Ethrel on ripening and quality of mango cv. Amrapali. Horticultural 

Journal 6: 19-23. 

Kumar, S, Patel, CB, Bhatt, RI 1997. Studies on seasonal cyclicity of Bactrocera correctus Bezzi in mango and 

sapota orchards using methyl eugenol trap. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal 22: 68- 

74. 

Kumar, S, Patel, CB, Bhatt, RI, Padhiar, BV, Patel, BG 1994 Qualitative and quantitative losses on some commercial 

varieties of mango due to Bactrocera correctus Bezzi (Diptera : Tephritidae) in South Gujarat. Pest 

Management and Economic Zoology 2: 1, 91-92. 

Kumar, V, Agarwal, ML 1998a. Efficacies of different bait combinations against Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera 

dorsalis (Hendel). Journal of Research (Bihar Agricultural University) 10: 83-6. 

Kumar, V, Agarwal, ML 1998b. Effect of some tropical hosts on development and survival of Bactrocera dorsalis 

(Hendel). Shashpa 5: 185-8. 

73

Kumar, V, Agarwal, ML 1998c. Biology and immature stages of Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Animal Morphology and Physiology 45: 20-4. 

Lakra, RK, Sangwan, MS, Singh, Zile 1991. Effect of application of some insecticides on the incidence of 'Ber' 

Fruit Fly (Carpomyia vesuviana Costa). Narendra Deva Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 71-79. 

Latif, A, Marwat, NK, Hussain, N 1987. Suppression of population and infestation of Dacus spp. fruit flies 

through the use of protein hydrolysate. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 3: 509-13. 

Lloyd, A, Drew, RAI 1997. Modification and testing of brewery waste yeast as a protein source for fruit fly bait. 

Allwood, AJ, Drew, RAI (Eds.): Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific: A Regional Symposium, 

Nadi, Fiji 28-31 October 1996 (Canberra, Australila: ACIAR Proceedings 76): 192-8. 

Logiswaran, G 1993. Evaluation of insecticides for the management of moringa fruit fly. Madras Agricultural 

Journal 80: 698-699. 

Mahmood, R, Baloch, KN, Makhdum, AH, Chaudhary, ZM, Mustafa, G, Stonehouse, JM 2001. Fruit flies in 

Pakistan: Damage and control in farmers' fields. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 83-85. 

Makhmoor, HD, Singh, ST 1998. Effective concentration of methyl eugenol for the control of guava fruit fly 

Dacus dorsalis Hendel in guava. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 6: 165-169. 

Makhmoor, HD, Singh, ST 1999. Effect of cultural operations on pupal mortality and adult emergence of guava 

fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 7: 33-36. 

Mani, M 1992. Bactrocera correcta on grapevine in India. FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 40: 162. 

Mann, GS 1993. Larval count/fruit fly emergence in response to variable number of egg punctures of Dacus 

dorsalis Hendel in guava fruits. Journal of Insect Science 6: 53-56. 

Mann, GS 1994. Fruit flies as pests of phalsa, Grewia asiatica Most, in Punjab. Journal of Insect Science 7: 136- 

137. 

Mann, GS 1996a. Relative efficacy of some insecticides with or without protein hydrolysate bait against the 

Oriental fruit fly infesting guava in Punjab. Pest Management and Economic Zoology 4: 71-75. 

Mann, GS 1996b. Seasonal incidence and build up of Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel on mango in Punjab. Journal of 

Insect Science 9: 129-132. 

Marwat, NK, Baloch, UK 1986. Methyl eugenol – a male fruit fly sex-attractant. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural 

Research 7: 234. 

Marwat, NK, Hussain, N, Khan, A 1992. Suppression of Dacus spp. by male annihilation in guava orchard. 

Pakistan Journal of Zoology 24, 82-4. 

Maxwell-Lefroy H 1909. Indian Insect Life: A Manual of the Insects of the Plains, Tropical India. Calcutta & 

Simla, India: Thacker, Spink. 786pp. 

McPhail, M 1939. Protein lures for fruit flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 32: 758-61. 

Misra, DS, Pandey, Manju Bala 1998. Current status of Bactrocera cucurbitae management in India 1998. Fruit 

Fly Symposium; FAO/IAEA International Conference on Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests in Kuala 

Lumpur, Malaysia. II: 10. 

Mohyuddin, AI, Mahmood, R 1993. Integrated control of mango pests in Pakistan. Acta Horticulturae 341: 467- 

83. 

Mumford, JD, Stonehouse, JM 1994. Pest management policies in less-developed countries. Black, R, Sweetmore, 

A (Eds): Crop Protection in the Developing World (Farnham: BCPC Monograph 61): 11-18. 

Murthy, JNA, Regupathy, A 1992. Seasonal incidence of moringa fruit fly, Gitona sp. South Indian Horticulture 

40: 43-48. 

Nakagawa, S, Suda, D, Urago, T, Harris, EJ 1975. Gallon plastic tub: a substitute for the McPhail trap. Journal of 

Economic Entomology 68: 405-6. 

Nandihalli, BS, Patil, DR, Jagginavar, SB, Biradar, AP, Guled, MB, Surkod, VS 1996. Incidence of fruit borer 

(Meridarchis scyrodes Meyr.) and fruit fly (Carpomyia vesuviana Costa) on different varieties of ber. 

Advances in Agricultural Research in India 6: 13-18. 

Nasir Uddin, M, Alam, SN, Zaman, MF, Khorsheduzzaman, AKM, Jasmine, HS, Alam, MS 2000a. Studies on the 

comparative effectiveness of some sex pheromone dispersers and mashed sweet gourd bait trap. 

Cucurbit Fly Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett Management: Brief Report (Gazipur, Bangladesh: IPM- 

CRSP, HRC, BARI): 1-3. 

Nasir Uddin, M, Alam, SN, Zaman, MF, Khorsheduzzaman, AKM, Jasmine, HS, Alam, MS 2000b. Relationship 

between bait trap captured cucurbit fruit flies (Bactrocera cucurbitae) and fruit injury in sweet gourd 

(pumpkin).Cucurbit Fly Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett Management: Brief Report (Gazipur, 

Bangladesh: IPM-CRSP, HRC, BARI): 3-5. 

Nasir Uddin, M, Alam, SN, Zaman, MF, Khorsheduzzaman, AKM, Jasmine, HS, Alam, MS 2000c. Efficacy of 

pheromone and mashed sweet gourd trap for the management of cucurbit fruit fly (Bactrocera 

74

cucurbitae Coquillett) in cucumber. Cucurbit Fly Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett Management: Brief 

Report (Gazipur, Bangladesh: IPM-CRSP, HRC, BARI): 5-6. 

Nasir Uddin, M, Alam, SN, Zaman, MF, Khorsheduzzaman, AKM, Jasmine, HS, Alam, MS 2000d. Effect of year 

round mass trapping of cucurbit fruit fly using pheromone trap and mashed sweet gourd. Cucurbit Fly 

Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett Management: Brief Report (Gazipur, Bangladesh: IPM-CRSP, HRC, 

BARI): 7-10. 

Negi, JP, Singh, Brajendra, Dagar, KS 2000a. Indian Horticulture Database: Millennium 2000. Gurgaon, India: 

National Horticulture Board. 245pp. 

Negi, JP, Singh, Brajendra, Dagar, KS 2000b. Wholesale and Retail Marketing of Fruits and Vegetables in 

Metropolitan Cities. Gurgaon, India: National Horticulture Board. 117pp. 

Nijjar, GS, Chanana, YR, Kanwar, JS, Kaundal, GS, Brar, SS, Deol, IS 1991. TA 170: A new peach cultivar. Journal 

of Research, Punjab Agricultural University 28: 153. 

Pareek, BL, Kavadia, VS 1994. Relative preference of fruitfly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett on different cucurbits. 

Indian Journal of Entomology 56: 72-75. 

Pareek, BL, Kavadia, VS 1995. Screening of musk melon varieties against fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett 

under field conditions. Indian Journal of Entomology 57: 417-420. 

Patel, BH Undated. Population Dynamics of Pest Complex of Ber and Chemical Control of Ber Fruit Fly 

Carpomyia vesuviana Costa. Thesis, Gujarat Agricultural University, Sardar Krushinaga, Gujarat, India. 

Patel, CB, Patel, KG, Saravaiya, SN 1996. Dose and efficacy period of methyl eugenol to attract mango fruitfly, 

Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal 21: 132-136. 

Patel, RK 1994. Bionomics and Control of Fruit Fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Tephritidae: Diptera) Infesting Little 

Gourd, Coccinia indica Wight and Arnott. PhD thesis, Gujarat Agricultural University, Navsari, Gujarat, 

India. 149pp. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1996. Influence of weather parameters on incidence of fruitfly, Dacus ciliatus on Little Gourd 

Indian Journal of Entomology 58: 239-44. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1998a. Biology of fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus on Little Gourd, Coccinia indica. Indian Journal of 

Entomology 60: 165-70. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1998b. Efficacy of methyl eugenol trap against fruit flies. Research Abstracts: Entomology in 

21 st Century - March 30 th -April 2 nd : 256. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB, 1998c. Preference of hosts for oviposition by fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew. Indian Journal 

of Entomology 60: 320. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1998d. Influence of hosts on the development of fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew. Indian 

Journal of Entomology 60: 313-314. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1998e. Emergence of adult fruit fly Dacus ciliatus Loew. Insect Environment 4: 8. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1998f. Fruit size and oviposition in the fruit fly Dacus ciliatus Loew (Tephritidae: Diptera). 

Insect Environment 4: 8-9. 

Patel, RK, Patel,CB 1998g. Biology of fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Tephritidae: Diptera) infesting little gourd, 

Coccinia indica W. & A. Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal 23: 54-60. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1998h. Combating male fruit flies using Patel fruit fly trap. Insect Environment 4: 52. 

Patel, RK, Patel, CB 1999. Influence of weather parameters on incidence of fruitfly, Dacus ciliatus on Little Gourd. 

Indian Journal of Entomology 58: 239-44 

Patel, SN 1976. The Bionomics and Control Measures of Ethiopian Fruitfly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Tephritidae: 

Diptera). MSc thesis, Gujarat Agricultural University, Sardar Krushinaga, Gujarat, India. 

Patil, Parveen, Patil, BV 1996. Insect pests of ber in North Karnataka. South Indian Horticulture 44: 113. 

Permalloo, S, Seewooruthun, SI, Soonoo, AR 2001. The Mauritian National Fruit Fly Programme: A brief review. 


Price, NS, Seewooruthun, SI (Eds) 2001. Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission Regional Fruit Fly 

Symposium, Flic en Flac, Mauritius 5-9 June, 2000. Quatre Bornes, Mauritius: Indian Ocean 

Commission. 232pp. 

Pruthi, HS 1941. Report of the Imperial Entomologist. Scientific Report of the Agricultural Research Institute, 

New Delhi: 102-114. 

Qureshi, ZA, Bughio, AR, Siddiqi, QH, Najeebullah 1976. Efficacy of methyl eugenol as a male attractant for 

Dacus zonatus (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pakistan Journal of Scientific and Industrial 

Research 19: 22-3. 

Qureshi, ZA, Bughio, AR, Siddiqi, QH 1981. Population suppression of fruit fly, Dacus zonatus (Saund.) (Dipt., 

Tephritidae) by male annihilation technique and its impact on fruit infestation. Zeitschrift für 

Angewandte Entomologie 91: 521-4. 

75

Qureshi, ZA, Siddiqi, QH, Hussain, T 1987. Screening of lures for Ethiopian Melon Fly. Fruit Flies: Proceedings 

of the 2 nd International Symposium, Colymbavi, Crete, 16-21 September 1986: 463-7. 

Qureahi, ZA, Hussain, T 1992. Efficacy of Nu-lure and protein hydrolysate baits in controlling Ethiopian Melon 

Fly. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research 13: 150-4. 

Ragumoorthi, KN, Rao, PVS 1998a. Neem products and plant extracts for managing Moringa fruit fly, Gitona 

distigma (Meigon). Dhaliwal, GS, Arora, R, Randhawa, NS, Dhawan, AK (Eds): Ecological Agriculture 

and Sustainable Development: Volume 2. Proceedings of International Conference on Ecological 

Agriculture: Towards Sustainable Development, Chandigarh, India, 15-17 November, 1997: 250-26. 

Ragumoorthi, KN, Rao, PVS 1998b IPM for moringa fruitfly Gitona distigma (Meigon) (Diptera: Drosophilidae). 

Reddy, PP, Kumar, NKK, Verghese, A (Eds) Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of 

the First National Symposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: Environmental 

Implications and Thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15-17 October 1997: 140-144. 

Ragumoorthy, KN, Selvaraj, KN, Rao, PVS 1998. Assessment of economic injury level (EIL) for moringa fruitfly 

Gitona distigma (Meigon) (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Reddy, PP, Kumar, NKK, Verghese, A (Eds) 

Advances in IPM for horticultural crops. Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Pest 

Management in Horticultural Crops: Environmental Implications and Thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15- 

17 October 1997. 137-139. 

Rana, JS, Parkash, O, Verma, SK 1992. Biology of guava fruit fly infesting guava fruits in Haryana and influence 

of temperature and relative humidity on its incidence. Crop Research (Hisar) 5: 525-529. 

Rana, JS, Parkash, O, Verma, SK 1993. Fecundity and longevity of guava fruit fly, Dacus zonatus Saunders, on 

different diets. Indian Journal of Ecology 20: 189-190. 

Ranganath, HR, Suryanarayana, MA, Veenakumari, K 1997. Papaya a new host record of carambola fruit fly 

Bactrocera (Bactrocera) carambolae Drew and Hancock. Insect Environment 3: 37. 

Rao, MS, Das, ND, Sankar, GRM 1995. Chemical control of ber fruitfly, Carpomyia vesuviana. Annals of Plant 

Protection Sciences 3: 164-190. 

Raveloson-Ravaomanarivo, LH 1996. Ecologie et Biologies des Mouches des Fruits (Diptera: Tephritidae) à 

Madagascar. Unpublis hed PhD Thesis, University of Madagascar, Antananarivo. 81pp. 

Reddy, AV 1997. Evaluation of certain new insecticides against cucurbit fruit fly (Dacus cucurbitae Coq) on 

bittergourd. Annals of Agricultural Research 18: 252-254. 

Reghunath, P, Indira, M. 2000. Fruit fly trap made from basil. ILEIA Newsletter 9(3): 31. 

http://echonet.org/azillus/azch8ins.htm 

Rhoades, RE 1982. The Art of the Informal Agricultural Survey. Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP) Social 

Science Department Training Document 1982 2. Lima, Peru: CIP. 40pp. 

Rhode, RH, Sanchez, R 1982. Field evaluation of McPhail and gallon plastic tub traps against the Mexican fruit 

fly. Southwestern Entomologist 7: 98-100. 

Richardson, J 2000. Catching flies with vinegar and honey. http://echonet.org/azillus/azch8ins.htm. 16/11. 

Rossler, Y 1989. Insecticidal bait and cover sprays. Robinson, AS, Hooper, G (Eds): Fruit Flies: Their Biology, 

Natural Enemies and Control (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier World Crop Pests 3A&B): 337- 

45. 

Saikia, DK, Dutta, SK 1997. Efficacy of some insecticides and plant products against fruit fly, Dacus tau (Walker) 

on ridge gourd, Luffa acutangula L. Journal of the Agricultural Science Society of North East India 

10: 132-135. 

Samalo, AP, Beshra, RC, Satpathy, CR 1991. Studies on comparative biology of the melon fruitfly, Dacus 

cucurbitae Coq. Orissa Journal of Agricultural Research 4: 1-5. 

Samalo, AP, Satapathy, CR, Behera, RC, Samal, T 1995. Chemical control of the melon fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae 

Coq. (Diptera: Tephritidae). Current Agricultural Research 8: 131-135. 

Sangwan, MS, Lakra, RK 1992. Effect of temperature and soil depth levels on pupae of jujube fruit fly, Carpomyia 

vesuviana Costa. Journal of Insect Science 5: 80-81. 

Saravaiya, SN, Patel, MB, Patel, CB, Desai,HR, Patel, JR 1998. Bioefficacy of different insecticides against fruitfly 

Carpomyia vesuviana Costa (Tephritidae: Diptera). Gujarat Agricultural University Research Journal 

24: 101-103. 

Sasidharan Pillai, K, Reghunath, P, Krishna Kumar R, Mohan Das 1991. Relative efficacy of different bases for the 

trapping of adults of Dacus cucurbitae Coq. Proceedings of the Kerala Science Congress, February- 

March 1991, Kozhikode: 174-5. 

Schirra, M 1999. Advances in Postharvest Diseases and Disorders Control of Citrus Fruit. 161pp. 

Segrè, A, Lunati, F, Brandani, A 1998. Global horticultural impact: Fruits and vegetables in developing countries. 

In: World Conference on Horticultural Research, 17-20 June Rome, Italy. 10pp +14 tabs + 6 figs. 

http://pop/agrsci.unibo.it/wchr/wc1/segre.html 

76

Sharma, VP, Lal, OP, Rohidas, SB, Pramanick, PK 1998. Varietal resistance in ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lamk.) 

against the fruitfly Carpomyia vesuviana Costa (Diptera: Tephritidae) under field conditions. Journal of 

Entomological Research 22: 61-67. 

Shivendra Singh, Singh RP 1998 Neem (Azadirachta indica) seed kernel extracts and azadirachtin as oviposition 

deterrents against the melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) and the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis). 

Phytoparasitica 26: 191-197. 

Shukla, RP, Prasad, VG 1985. Population fluctuations of the oriental fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel in relation to 

hosts and abiotic factors. Tropical Pest Management 31: 273-5. 

Shukla, RP, Prasad, VG, Tandon, PL 1984. Effectiveness of different insecticides against oriental fruitfly Dacus 

dorsalis Hendel. Indian Journal of Horticulture 41: 307-9. 

Singh, Gajendra 1990. Insect pests of mango. Chadha, KL, Pareek, OP (Eds) Advances in Horticulture 3: 1481- 

1500. 

Singh, S, Kumar, P, Brahmachari, VS, Singh, DN, 1995. Effect of preharvest spray of GA3 and Ethrel on storage 

life of mango cv. Amrapalli. Orissa Journal of Horticulture 23: 112-118. 

Singh, SP 1997. Fruit flies and their management. Indian Horticulture April-June: 35-7. 

Sinha, Purnima, Saxena, SK 1999. Effect of culture filtrates of three fungi in different combination on the 

development of the fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coq. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences 7: 96-99. 

Sokal, RR, Rohlf, FJ 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. New York, 

NY, USA: W.H. Freeman. Third edition. 887pp. 

Soman, M, Raghunath, P, Gokulapalan, C 1999. Ecofriendly management of sucking pests of bittergourd. LEISA 

India Supplement 1.2: 19. 

Sood,P, Nath, A 1998. Evaluation of insecticide baits for the control of fruit fly, Bactrocera tau (Walker) in the 

mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. Journal of Hill Research 11: 171-177. 

Sood, P, Nath, A 1999. Fruit flies associated with cucurbits in Himachal Pradesh. Journal of Hill Research 12: 52- 

54. 

Srivastava, RP 1997. Mango Insect Pest Management. 272pp. 

Srinavasan, K 1993. Pests of vegetable crops and their control. Chadha, KL, Calloo, G (Eds) Advances in 

Horticulture 6: 860-86. 

Stoll, G 2000. Natural Crop Protection in the Tropics: Letting Information come to Life. 2 nd edition. 

Weikersheim, Germany: Margraf. 376pp. 

Stonehouse, JM 1995. Pesticides, thresholds and the small tropical farmer. Insect Science and its Application 16: 

259-62. 

Stonehouse, JM 2001. Current fruit fly fesearch around the world - an overview. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 

143-146. 

Stonehouse, JM, Manrakhan, A, Mumford, JD (In prep.). Penetration of a trap barrier by adult Bactrocera zonata 

(Diptera: Tephritidae). 

Stonehouse, JM, Mumford, JD, Mustafa, G 1998. Economic losses to Tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in 

Pakistan. Crop Protection 17, 159-164. 

Stonehouse, JM, Stravens, R, Bonne, G, Fowler, SV, Gopaul, S 2001. Fruit fly host distribution and infestation in 

Seychelles. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 55 - 58. 

Stonehouse, JM, Zia, Q, Mahmood, R, Poswal, A, Mumford, JD (In press) "Single-killing-point" laboratory 

assessments of bait controls of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan. Crop Protection. In press. 

Appendix IV.A. 

Stonehouse, JM, Afzal, M, Zia, Q, Mumford, JD, Poswal, A, Mahmood, R (In press) "Single-killing-point" field 

assessments of bait and lure controls of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan. Crop Protection. In 

press. Appendix IV.B. 

Stonehouse, JM, Mahmood, R, Poswal, A, Mumford, JD, Baloch, KN, Chaudhary, ZM, Makhdum, AH, Mustafa, 

G, Huggett, D (In press) Farm field assessments of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan: 

Distribution, damage and control. Crop Protection. In press. Appendix IV.C. 

Stravens, R, Gopaul, S, Fowler, SV, Stonehouse, JM 2001. Experimental evaluation of fruit fly assessment and 

control methods in Seychelles. Price, Seewooruthun (Eds): 49-53. 

Stride, B 1996. More melons, more rage: How to bait a melon fly. Aina: UN Afghan Magazine 2 (September): 15- 

16. 

Tamhankar, AJ, Rajendran, TP, Mamdapur, VR 2001. Evaluation of a pheromone trap for the cotton pink bollworm 

Pectinophora gossypiella Saunders. International Journal of Pest Management 47: 79-80. 

Tandon, PL, Verghese, A 1996. Pest management in mango. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research Annual 

Report 1995-96: 81-2. 

77

Tewatia, AS, Dhankhar, BS 1996. Inheritance of resistance to melon fruitfly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) in bitter 

gourd (Momordica charantia). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 66: 617-620. 

Thakur, JC, Khattra, AS, Brar, KS 1992. Comparative resistance to fruit fly in bitter gourd. Haryana Journal of 

Horticultural Sciences 21: 285-288. 

Thakur, JC, Khattra, AS, Brar, KS 1994a. Genetic variability and heritability for quantitative traits and fruit fly 

infestation in bittergourd. Journal of Research, Punjab Agricultural University 31: 161-166. 

Thakur, JC, Khattra, AS, Brar, KS 1994b. Stability analysis for economic traits and infestation of melon fruit fly 

(Dacus cucurbitae) in bittergourd (Momordica charantia). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 64: 

378-381. 

Thakur, JC, Khattra, AS, Brar, KS 1996. Correlation studies between economic traits, fruit fly infestation and yield 

in bittergourd. Punjab Vegetable Grower 31: 37-40. 

Van Mele, P, Cuc, NTT, van Huis, A 2000. Farmers’ knowledge, perceptions and practices in mango pest control 

in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. International Journal of Pest Management 45: in press. 

Verghese, A 1998. Methyl eugenol attracts female mango fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel. Insect 

Environment 4: 101. 

Verghese, A 1999. Pest management in mango. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research Annual Report 1998- 

99: 53. 

Verghese, A, Devi, KS 1998. Relation between trap catch of Bactrocera dorsalis and abiotic factors. Reddy, PP, 

Kumar, NKK, Verghese, A (Eds): Advances in IPM for Horticultural Crops. Proceedings of the 1 st 

National Symposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: Environmental Implications and 

Thrusts, Bangalore, India, 15-17 October 1997: 15-18. 

Verghese, A, Jayanthi, PDK 2001. A convenient polythene sachet trap for fruit flies, Bactrocera spp. Insect 

Environment 6: 193. 

Yadav, LB, Rizvi, SMA 1995. Susceptibility of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana) cultivars to ber fruitfly, Carpomya 

vesuviana. Bulletin of Entomology (New Delhi) 36: 123-124. 

Yin, Robert K 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: 

Sage. 171pp. 

Zia, Q, Mahmood, R, Stonehouse, JM 2001. Laboratory and Field Tests of Home-Made Baits of Animal Protein. 


78

Project Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India (IMFFI) (DFID Project 

CPPPM210 (Contract R8089) 

IMFFI Knowledge Review: Publications on Indian Fruit Fly 

Ecology, Infestation and Management 

August 2004 

Frontispiece: Indian Diptera from Maxwell-Lefroy, H: 

Indian Insect Life: A Manual of the Insects of the Plains, Tropical India 

(Calcutta and Simla: Thacker, Spink, 1909).

This document present summaries of publications about Indian fruit flies 

located by electronic and manual searches from a base at Pusa, New Delhi. It 

is not exhaustive. It contains eighteen numbered sections as follows. 

1 Host production by state 

2 Host production by product 

3 Host production trends 

4 Species list 

5 Host list 

6 Species records (qualitative): incidence and distribution, including findings alongside other pes 

7 Loss estimates (quantitative) with and without crop protection 

8 Population dynamics, fluctuations, distribution patterns and environmental ecology 

9 Preference and survival among different hosts, host resistance and susceptibility 

10 Rearing, culture and diet 

11 Physiology and biochemistry, including the effects of radiation 

12 Natural enemies (multicellular organisms - not those applicable by a sprayer): predators, paras 

13 Cultural controls 

14 Insecticides assessed for laboratory lethality and as sprays, including botanicals, PGRs and live 

15 Chemical sterilization 

16 Pheromone lures, colours 

17 Food baits 

18 References 

Authors: Singh, A, Sardana, HR, Chaurasia, V, Stonehouse, JM 

This document is also available as a spreadsheet computer file, to allow 

searching and sorting, from j.stonehouse@imperial.ac.uk 

Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India: Knowledge Review 2 of 110

Section 1: Indian Fruit and Vegetable Production by area 

2001 Data (* - 2000 data) 

Source: Indian Horticulture Database, National Horticulture Board, New Delhi 

State or Area Production Yield State or Area Production Yield 

Territory ('000 Ha) ('000 MT) (MT/Ha) Territory ('000 Ha) ('000 MT) (MT/Ha) 

FRUIT VEGETABLES 

Maharashtra 529.3 8680.8 16.4 West Bengal 1075.0 17779.4 16.5 

Andhra Pradesh 448.0 5003.4 11.2 Uttar Pradesh 668.1 13030.4 19.5 

Karnataka 326.9 4819.5 14.7 Bihar 707.8 10219.7 14.4 

Bihar 268.4 3237.5 12.1 Orissa 702.5 8089.1 11.5 

Uttar Pradesh 287.8 2713.0 9.4 Karnataka 343.7 5763.0 16.8 

Gujarat 170.9 2268.2 13.3 Maharashtra 409.0 5142.0 12.6 

Kerala 234.5 1772.6 7.6 Madhya Pradesh 238.5 3501.9 14.7 

Madhya Pradesh 63.2 1740.4 27.5 Andhra Pradesh 249.9 3147.7 12.6 

West Bengal 133.7 1656.5 12.4 Gujarat 205.6 3070.8 14.9 

Assam 107.0 1293.8 12.1 Assam 238.3 2693.1 11.3 

Orissa 215.4 1284.4 6.0 Kerala 114.8 2530.9 22.0 

Jammu & Kashmir 140.9 837.3 5.9 Punjab 131.0 2318.0 17.7 

Uttranchal 191.8 541.0 2.8 Haryana 141.7 2191.5 15.5 

Punjab 35.2 479.7 13.6 Jharkhand 149.8 2109.5 14.1 

Tripura 28.9 450.8 15.6 Chhattisgarh 84.2 1146.3 13.6 

Himachal Pradesh 213.0 438.3 2.1 Uttranchal 104.8 1138.1 10.9 

Rajasthan* 20.0 339.3 17.0 Delhi 114.8 862.7 7.5 

Nagaland 24.7 290.4 11.8 Jammu & Kashmir 45.7 757.9 16.6 

Jharkhand 20.9 265.1 12.7 Himachal Pradesh 44.8 734.2 16.4 

Tamil Nadu 240.4 237.7 1.0 Rajasthan 95.1 386.4 4.1 

Haryana 30.7 232.0 7.6 Tripura 31.8 328.1 10.3 

Meghalaya 24.1 186.9 7.8 Meghalaya 37.7 303.6 8.1 


Chhattisgarh 11.8 154.3 13.1 Nagaland 26.9 253.6 9.4 

Arunanchal Pradesh 51.1 123.1 2.4 Arunanchal Pradesh 21.0 83.7 4.0 

Manipur 24.7 118.7 4.8 Goa 7.6 76.0 10.0 

Goa 10.5 71.5 6.8 Manipur 9.7 67.4 6.9 

Mizoram 18.0 66.7 3.7 Sikkim 13.5 59.7 4.4 

Pondicherry 1.1 26.7 24.3 Pondicherry 3.7 54.2 14.6 

Andaman & Nicobar* 3.7 16.7 4.5 Mizoram 7.9 47.3 6.0 

Sikkim 9.4 10.0 1.1 Andaman & Nicobar* 3.1 15.8 5.1 

Dadra & Nagar Haveli* 0.7 7.1 10.1 Dadra & Nagar Haveli* 1.5 13.5 9.0 

Daman & Diu* 0.4 3.4 8.5 Tamil Nadu 218.6 11.0 0.1 

Chandigarh 0.1 1.1 11.0 Chandigarh 0.1 1.7 17.0 

Lakshadweep 0.3 1.1 3.7 Daman & Diu* 0.1 1.1 11.0 

Delhi 0.1 1.0 10.0 Lakshadweep 0.2 0.2 1.0 


Section 2: Indian Production of Fruit and Vegetables by Product 

2001 

Source: Indian Horticulture Database, National Horticulture Board, New Delhi 

Fruit Area Production Yield Area Vegetable Area Production Yield Area 

Product ('000 Ha) ('000 MT) (MT/Ha) as % Product ('000 Ha) ('000 MT) (MT/Ha) as % 

Banana 482.8 16167.0 33.5 12 Potato 1211.3 222242.7 183.5 19 

Mango 1522.6 10237.0 6.7 39 Brinjal 472.1 7676.9 16.3 8 

Citrus 496.6 4399.5 8.9 13 Tomato 458.7 7277.1 15.9 7 

Papaya 70.1 1767.1 25.2 2 Cabbage 245.4 5617.1 22.9 4 

Guava 148.2 1631.5 11.0 4 Onion 448.9 4721.1 10.5 7 

Apple 239.8 1226.6 5.1 6 Cauliflower 256.3 4694.6 18.3 4 

Pineapple 78.2 1221.1 15.6 2 Okra 349.1 3344.6 9.6 6 

Grapes 45.2 1056.9 23.4 1 Peas 319.3 3007.6 9.4 5 

Sapota 69.2 674.0 9.7 2 Others 2487.4 35339.8 14.2 40 

Litchi 53.6 412.0 7.7 1 

Others 680.1 6577.3 9.7 17 

Total 3886.4 45370.0 Total 6248.5 293921.5 


Section 3: Trends in Indian Fruit and Vegetable Production 

Source: Report and Data Base of Pilot Scheme on Major Fruits & Vegetables - 1982-83 to 1999-2000, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, New Delhi 

Crop estimation survey on fruits and vegetables in 11 States: 

(Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu & Uttar Pradesh) 

1999 2000 % change 1991-2000 

Area Production Area Production Area Production 

# ('000Ha) ('000MT) (MT/Ha) ('000Ha) ('000MT) (MT/Ha) ('000Ha) ('000MT) (MT/Ha) 

Mango 1 645 3639 5.6 889 3581 4.0 38 -2 -29 

Apple 2 33 342 10.3 86 59 0.7 158 -83 -93 

Banana 3 152 5898 38.8 234 9358 40.1 54 59 3 

Grapes 4 23 384 16.7 38 941 24.8 65 145 48 

Guava 5 28 187 6.8 43 294 6.9 54 58 2 

Pineapple 6 1 28 31.6 0 11 32.7 -60 -58 3 

Citrus 7 156 965 6.2 281 2305 8.2 80 139 33 

1 Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab,Tamil Nadu & Uttar Pradesh 

2 Himachal Pradesh 

3 Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Orissa & Tamil Nadu 

4 Haryana, Maharashtra, Karnataka & Tamil Nadu 

5 Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu & Uttar Pradesh 

6 Tamil Nadu 

7 Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan & Tamil Nadu 


Section 4: Fruit Fly Species Reported from India 

Source: Kapoor "Fruit Flies of India" 

1 Dacus brachycera 

2 D. eumenoides 

3 D. icariiformis 

4 D. munroi 

5 D. quadristriata 

6 D. sphaeroidalis 

7 D. crabroniformis 

8 Bactrocera (Polistomimetes) minax 

9 B. (Javadacus) aberrans pallescentis 

10 B. (Arodacus) cocciniae 

11 B. (A.) trilineata 

12 B. (Bactrocera) affinis 

13 B. (B.) andamanensis 

14 B. (B.) biguttata 

15 B. (B.) bangalorensis 

16 B. (B.) correcta 

17 B. (B.) diaphora 

18 B. (B.) parvula 

19 B. (B.) occipitalis 

20 B. (B.) poonaensis 

21 B. (B.) scutellarius 

22 B. (Polistomimetes) osciniae 

23 B. (Paradacus) pusaensis 

24 B. (P.) watersi 

25 B. (Melanodaeus) citronellae 

26 B. (Parazeugodacus) bipustulata 


27 B. (Zeugodacus) duplicata 

28 B. (Z.) gavisa 

29 Acanthonevra dunlopi 

30 A. formosana 

31 A. fuscipennis 

32 A. gravelyi 

33 A. hemileina 

34 A. imparata 

35 A. inermis 

36 A. vaga 

37 A. vidua 

38 Diarrhegma modestum 

39 Hexacinia radiosa 

40 Phorelliosoma ambitiosum 

41 Rioxa parvipunctata 

42 R. sexmaculata 

43 Themara maculipennis 

44 Urophora stylata 

45 Acroceratitis ceratitina 

46 A. separata 

47 A. gladiella 

48 Acrotaeniostola apiventris 

49 Anoplomus flexuosus 

50 Callistomyia pavonina 

51 Carpophthorella scutellomaculata 

52 Chaetellipsis atrata 

53 C. dispilota 

54 C. paradoxa 

55 Galbifascia sexpunctata 


56 Gastrozona balioptera 

57 G. fasciventris 

58 G. montana 

59 Phaeospila varipes 

60 Phaeospilodes bambusae 

61 Proanoplomus laqueatus 

62 P. vittatus 

63 Sophira phlox 

64 Taeniostola limbata 

65 T. vittigera 

66 Xanthorrhachis annandalei 

67 X. assamensis 

68 Oxyaciura monochaeta 

69 Sphaeniscus quadrincisus 

70 Adrama apicalis 

71 A. austeni 

72 A. determinata determinata 

73 Meracanthomyia intermedia intermedia 

74 M. hotiensis hotiensis 

75 M. maculipennis maculipennis 

76 Ceratitis capitata capitata 

77 Euphranta (Rhacochlaena) cassiae 

78 E. (R.) crux 

79 E. (R.) dissoluta 

80 E. (R.) nigripeda 

81 Ichneumonosoma imitans 

82 Indophranta humerata 

83 Acidiella angustifrons 

84 A. discalis 


85 A. elythraspis 

86 A. riaxaeformis 

87 Acidiostigma apicalis 

88 A. lucens 

89 Anomoia immsi 

90 A. mirabilis 

91 Chetostoma completa 

92 C. sarolensis 

93 Chenacidiella bangaloriensis 

94 Hemilea cnidella 

95 H. praestans 

96 Myiopardalis pardalina 

97 Myoleja fossata 

98 Pseudacidia himalayensis 

99 Rhagoletis bezzianum 

100 Trypeta buddha 

101 T. indica 

102 Vidalia ceratophora 

103 V. cervicornis 

104 V. fletcher 

105 V. melanonotum 

106 V. triceratops 

107 V. trigenata 

108 Rhabdochaeta asteria 

109 R. bakeri 

110 R. gladifera 

111 Dictyotrypeta longiseta 

112 Platensina amplipennis 

113 P. fulvifacies 


114 P. tetrica 

115 Indacilira basivitta 

116 Isoconia bifaria 

117 I. reinhardi 

118 Tephraciura basimacula 

119 T.. pachmarica 

120 Tephrella decipiens 

121 T. variegata 

122 Acanthiophilus Iugubris 

123 Actinoptera carignaniensis 

124 A. formosana 

125 A. montana 

126 Campiglossa cribellata 

127 C. kumaonensis 

128 Paratephri.ti.s abstractus 

129 Paroxyna gemma 

130 P. iracunda 

131 P. lyncea 

132 P. parvula 

133 Pliomelaena udhampurensis 

134 Pliomelanena quadrimaculata 

135 Tephriti.s atocoptera 

136 T. darjeelingensis 

137 T. ludhianaensis 

138 Trupanea asteria 

139 T. aucta 

140 T. augur 

141 T. cosmia 

142 T. sirhindiensis 


143 T. inaequabilis 

144 T. keralaensis 

145 T. pteralis 

146 T. pentadactyla 

147 T. proovita 

148 T. stellata 

149 Craspedoxantha indica 

150 C. octopunctata 

151 Orellia tribulicola 

152 Ictericodes cashmerenisis 


Section 5: Hosts of Tephritid Fruit Flies in India 

Source: Kapoor, "Indian Fruit Flies" 

Host 

Linnean name Family English name Hindi name Fly species 

1 Aegle marmelos Rutaceae Bael Bel B. dorsalis and B. zonatus 

2 Althaea rosea Malvaceae Hollyhock Gul-khera C. octopunctata 

3 Anacardium occidentale Anacardiaceae Cashew Kaju B. dorsalis 

4 Annona squamosa Annonaceae Sweet apple Sharifa: Sitaphal B. zonata 

5 Artemisia absinthium Compositae Wormwood Vilaiti afsantin Trupanea stellata 

6 Artocarpus altilis Moraceae Bread fruit - B. dorsalis 

7 Artocarpus heterophullus Moraceae Jack fruit Katahal B. dorsalis ; B. tau 

8 Bambusa arundinacea Bambusaceae Thorny bamboo Bans Stictaspis ceratitina ; Gastrozona fasciventris; Phaeospilodes bambusae; 

Galbifascia sexmaculata 

9 Bambusa burmanica Bambusaceae Wild bamboo Chaetellipsis paradoxa; Phaeospilodes bambusae 

10 Bambusa vulgaris Bambusaceae Feathery bamboo Bansini A. striata 

11 Barleria alba Acanthaceae Ornamental shrub Isoconia bifaria 

12 Benincasa hispida Cucurbitaceae White gourd Petha D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae; B. divera; B. tau 

13 Berberis lycium Berberidaceae Dar- hald B. cucurbitae 

14 Bidens biternata Asteraceae Hairy beggar tick Dioxyna sororcula 

15 Bidens laciniosa Cucubitaceae Bryony B.caudata; B.tau 

16 Blumea lacera Compositae Kakranda Rhabdochaeta asteria 

17 Calendula officinalis Compositae Potmarigold Zergul T. stellata 

18 Calotropis procera Asclepiadaceae Akund Safed ak D. longistylus 

19 Camella sinensis Theaceae Tea Cha Adrama determinata 

20 Capsicum annuum Solanaceae Spanish pepper Lal Mirch D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae 

21 Capsicum frutescens Solanaceae Red pepper Lal Mirch B. dorsalis; B. cucurbitae 

24 Carica papaya Coricaceae Papaya; Papaw Papita B. cucurbitae 

25 Carissa carandas Apocynaceae Karanda Karaunda B. correcta; B. dorsalis 


26 Cassia fistula Compositae Safflower Kusum A. helianthi 

27 Centaurea cyanus Compositae Golden shower Amaltas Euphranta cassiae 

28 Cerebera manghas Apocynaceae Basket flower A. helianthi; C. octopuntata 

29 Centaurea cyanus Compositae Cornflower A. helianthi; C. octopuntata 

30 Cerebera manghas Apocynaceae Honde fruit B. dorsalis; B. diversa 

31 Chrysanthemum indicum Compositae Japanese 

chrysanthemum 

Gulaudi T. amoena 

32 Chrydophyllum cainito Sapotaceae Star apple B.dorsalis 

33 Cirsium alfocinsus Asteraceae A thistle U. stylata; T. serratulae; Tephritis heiseri; T.cardualis 

34 Cirsium arvense Asteraceae Canada thistle U. stylata; E. sonchi 

35 Cirsium vulgarae Asteraceae Bull thistle U. stylata 

36 Citrullus colocynthis Cucubitaceae Bitter apple B. cucurbitae 

37 Citrullus lanatus Cucurbitaceae Water melon Tarbooz D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae; B. tau; M. pardalina 

38 C. lanatus var. fistulossus Cucurbitaceae Roundgourd Tinda B. cucurbitae; D. ciliatus; B. tau 

39 Citrus aurantifolia var limetta Rutaceae Sweet lime Meetha nimbu B. dorsalis; B. zonata 

40 Citrus aurantium Rutaceae Sour orange Khatta B. dorsalis; B. zonata; B. diversa 

41 Citrus decumana Rutaceae Pomelo Chkotra B. caudata 

42 Citrus grandis Rutaceae Pomelo B. tau; B. dorsalis; B. nigrotibialis; B. zonata; B. diversa; B. cucurbitae 

43 Citrus limon Rutaceae Lemon Bara nimbu B. zonata 

44 Citrus medica Rutaceae Citron Bijaura; Galgal B. dorsalis; B.zonata 

45 Citrus nobilis Rutaceae Orange - B. dorsalis; B. zonata 

46 Citrus reticulata Rutaceae Mandarin Santra B. dorsalis; B. zonata 

47 Citrus sinensis Rutaceae Sweet orange Musambi B. dorsalis; B. zonata 

48 Cnicus sp. Asteraceae A thistle - T. serratulae; T. heiseri; U. Stylata 

51 Coffea canephora Rubiaceae Congo coffee - B. nigrotibialis; B. dorsalis 

52 Coreopsis baselis Compositae GoldenWave - D. sororcula 

53 Coreopsis grandiflora Compositae - - D. sororcula 

54 Cucumis melo Cucurbitaceae Musk melon Kharbuza D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae; M. pardalina 

55 Cucumis melo var momordica Cucurbitaceae Snap melon Phunt; Kachra B. cucurbitae; D. ciliatus 


56 Cucumis melo var. utilissimus Cucurbitaceae Long melon Kakri D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae; B.zonata 

57 Cucumis pubescens Cucurbitaceae Wild cucurbit - D. ciliatus; B.cucurbitae 

58 Cucumis sativus Cucurbitaceae Cucumber Khira D. ciliatus; B. caudata; D. cucurbitae; B. tau; M. pardalina 

59 Cucumis trigonus Cucurbitaceae Wild cucurbit - B. cucurbitae; M. paradalina 

60 Cucurbita maxima Cucurbitaceae Red gourd; Red 

Pumpkin 

Sitaphal D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae; B. tau 

61 Cucurbita moschata Cucurbitaceae Squash Meetha Kaddu B. expandens; B. cucurbitae; B. caudata 

62 Cucurbita pepo Cucurbitaceae Pumpkin Vilaiti kaddu D. ciliatus; B. diversa; D. cucurbitae 

63 Cydonia oblonga Rosaceae Quince Bihi B. dorsalis 

64 Cymbopogon winterianus Poaceae Citronella - B. citronellae 

65 Dahlia pinnata Compositae Dahlia - D. sororcula 

66 Dendrocalamus giganteus Gramineae Gaint bamboo - A.striata 

67 Dendrocalamus stricutus Gramineae Solid bamboo Bans kaban A. ceratitina 

68 Diospyros sp. Ebenaceae Persimmon - B. dorsalis 

69 Eclipta alba Compositae - Bhangra Rhabdochaeta asteria 

70 Elephantopus scaber Compositae - Gobi Tertraluaresta obscuriventris 

71 Eribotrya japonica Rosaceae Loquat Lokat B. dorsalis 

72 Eugenis uniflora Mrytaceae Surinam cherry - B.correcta 

73 Eupatorium trapezoideum Asteraceae Crofton weed - Procecidochares utilis 

74 Ficus carica Moraceae Fig Anjir B. dorsalis; B. zonata 

75 Ficus mysorensis Moraceae - - B. dorsalis 

76 Fortunella japonica Rutaceae Kumbquat Narange B. zonata 

77 Garcinia cambogia Guttiferae Gamboge tree Vilaiti imli B. expandens 

80 Gonicaulon glabrum Compositae - - C. octopuntata 

81 Helianthus annuus Compositae Sunflower Surajmukhi A. helianthi; C. octopunctata 

82 Hyptis capitata Labiatae - - Sphaleniscus atilius 

83 Ilex diphyrena Aquilfoliaceae - - Chaetellipsis dispilota 

84 Inula cappa Asteraceae ,- Tepherella veriegata 

85 Juglans regia Juglandaceae Walnut Akhrot Vidalia cervicornis 


86 Jussiaea sp. Onagraceae - - Platensina acrostacta 

87 Lactuca sativa Compositae Lettuce Salad Dioxyna sororcula 

88 Lactuca scariola Compositae Wild lettuce Kahu Trupanea amoena 

89 Lagenaria siceraria Cucurbitaceae Bottle Gourd Lauki; Ghia B. occipaotalis; D. ciliatus; B. diversa; B. cucurbitae;B. tau; B. zonata 

90 Lantana camara Verbenaceae Lantana - Eutreta xanhochaeta 

91 Litchi chinensis Sapindaceae Litchi Lichi B. dorsalis 

92 Loranthus longiflorus Loranthaceae - - Ceratitella asiatica 

93 Luffa acutangula Cucurbitaceae Ribbed of Ridge gourdKali; toria B. zonata; D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae; D. tau 

94 Luffa aegyptiaca Cucurbitaceae Smooth loofah Ghia toria B. zonata; D. ciliatus; B. diversa; B. cucurbitae; D. tau 

95 Lycopersicum lycopersicum Solanaceae Tomato Tamatar B. caudata; B. cucurbitae; B. tau; B. zonata 

96 Lycopodium clavatum Lycopodiaceae A herb - D. sororcula 

97 Madhuca indica Sapotaceae Mahua tree Mohua B. zonata 

98 Malus pumila Rosaceae Apple Sab B. dorsalis; B. zonata 

99 Mangifera indica Anacardiaceae Mango Amaltas B. correcta; B. dorsalis; B. diversa; B. tau 

100 Manilkara achras Sapotaceae Sapodilla Chiku; Sapota B. dorsalis;B. zonata; B. caudata; B. tau 

101 Matricaria chamomilla Compositae Chamomille Babuna T. stellata 

102 Mimusops elengi Sapotaceae Spanish cherry Maulsari B. dorsalis 

104 Momordica charantia Cucurbitaceae Bitter gourd Karela D. ciliatus; B. cucurbitae; B. tau 

105 Momordica cochinchinensis Cucurbitaceae - Bhat Karela B. cucurbitae 

106 Morus australis Moraceae Common mulberry Tut B. dorsalis 

107 Musa paradisiacal Musaceae Plantain; Banana Kela B. dorsalis; B. diversa 

108 Myristica beddomei Myristicaceae Wild nutmeg - B. diversa 

109 Myristica fragrans Myristicaceae Nutmeg Jaiphal B. diversa 

110 Olea europaea Oleaceae Olive Zaitun B. oleae 

113 Passiflora edulis Passifloraceae Passion fruit Jhumkalata B. dorsalis 

114 Passiflora palida Passifloraceae - - D. sphaeroidalis 

115 Persea Americana Lauraceae Avocado - B. dorsalis 

116 Phaseolus vulgaris Papilionaceae Kidney bean Vilaiti sem B. cucurbitae 

117 Phoenix dactylifera Palmae Date palm Pindkhajur B. cucurbitae 


118 Physalis peruviana Solanaceae Cape gooseberry Rasbari B.dorsalis 

119 Prunus armeniaca Rosaceae Apricot Khubani B. correcta; B.dorsalis 

120 Prunus avium Rosaceae Sweet cherry Gilas B. dorsalis 

121 Prunus domestica Rosaceae Plum Alucha,Alubukhara B.dorsalis 

122 Prunus persica Rosaceae Peach Aru B. dorsalis; B. zonata; B. caudata; B.cucurbitae 

123 Psidium guajava Myrtaceae Guava Amrud B. dorsalis; B. zonata; B. caudata; B. cucurbitae 

124 Pulicaria crispa Compositae - Buhrna Trupanea augur 

125 Pucica granatum Punicaceae Pomegranate Anar B. dorsalis; B. zonata 

126 Pyrus communis Rosaceae Pear Nakh B.dorsalis; B.zonata 

127 Raphacus sativus Cruciferae Radish Muli B.diversa 

128 Ricinus communis Euphorbiaceae Castor seed Arandi Platensina zodiacalis 

129 Rubus fruticossus Rosaceae Black berry Vilaiti anchu B. dorsalis 


Section 6: Species Records - Incidence and Presence 

Fly Host Location Author Date Summary 

Callantra minax Orange Darjeeling, 

West Bengal 

Nath 1973 This is stated to be the first published record of Callantra minax (End.) [RAE/A 9, 

p.98] damaging orange fruits in India; infestation by the Tephritid was responsible 

for high pre-harvest drop of ripening fruits in hilly areas of Darjeeling, West Bengal. 

B. latifrons Solanaceae Bihar Agarwal 1984 In Bihar B. latiforns is found in solanaceae such as Solanum melongena. 

Bactrocera spp. Mango Andhra 

Pradesh 

India Agarwal et al. 1992 One new species of Tephritis is described from India, and notes are provided on the 

taxonomy of 2 other species of tephritids. One species is recorded for the 2nd time 

only from India, and Adrama determinata (a pest of tea elsewhere) and Urophora 

stylata (a natural enemy of weeds elsewhere) are recorded for the first time from 

that country. 

Babu et al. 2001 Among 18 species of insects that were recorded at various stages of mango crop in 

an overlapping manner during August 1998 to July 1999 and August 1999 to July 

2000 in Chittoor and Cuddapah regions of Andhra Pradesh only five species, 

Amritodus atkinsone, Idioscopus spp., Procontarinia matteiana, Orthaga exvinacea 

and Sternochetus mangiferae and Bactrocera spp. attained major status prevailing 

in a severe form for a long time. Three species, Apoderus tranquebaricus, 

Coptosoma variegatum and Dasychira mendosa [Olene mendosa], were recorded 

only as stray pests during crop growth. The remaining ten insect species appeared 

as minor pests without causing any severe and perceptible damage to the crop. 

Karnataka Balikai 1999 A field survey was carried out in Ziziphus mauritiana. A total of 22 pests was identified. Of 

these, B. correcta was found to be major pest, with infestation levels above 51%. 

B. tau, Callantra Snake gourd, 

ash gourd, bottle 

gourd, pumpkin 

Assam Borah and Dutta 1997 Infestations by tephritids were studied on ash gourd (Benincasa hispida), bitter gourd 

(Momordica charantia), bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), cucumber, pumpkin (Cucurbita 

moschata), ridge gourd (Luffa acutangula) and snake gourd (Trichosanthes cucumerina) in 

kharif and summer. B. tau and Callantra [B.] sp. were found infesting these vegetables. 

Snake gourd had the highest fruit infestation (62.62%). Larger proportions of marketable fruits 

(healthy + lightly infested) were obtained from ash gourd in kharif and bottle gourd in summer. 

Snake gourd and pumpkin yielded the lowest proportions of marketable fruits. 


Bactrocera sp. T. dioica Mondouri, 

Nadia, West 

Bengal 

B. dorsalis Mango Kanpur, Uttar 

Pradesh 

Chintha et al. 2002 In a field study conducted at Mondouri, Nadia, West Bengal, from 1998-99 to 2000- 

2001, the pests infesting T. dioica cv. Kajli consisted of 16 insect species, 

Tetranychus cinnabarinus, snails, and rodents. Major pests were Epilachna 

dodecastigma [E. pusillanima], E. septima, Aulacophora foveicollis, A. lewisii, 

Diaphania indica, Bemisia tabaci, and T. cinnabarinus while the minor ones were 

Monolepta signata, Mylabris pustulata, Trichoplusia sp., Aphis gossypii, Bactrocera 

sp., Solenopsis geminata, snails, and rodents. Haptoncus sp., Pheidole 

constanceae, and Ponera truncata appeared as pollen, nectar, or honey dew 

feeders. Coccinella transversalis, Brumus suturalis [Brumoides suturalis], Micraspis 

discolor, Casnoidia indica, Paederus fuscipes, and Pardosa birmanica comprised 

the predatory species, with Pardosa birmanica being the most important throughout 

the cropping season. 

Dwivedi et al. 2003 Investigations were carried out during 1997-98 at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India to 

monitor the seasonal incidence of insect pests of 20-year-old mango trees in 

relation to mean temperature and humidity. The population of mealy bug (Drosicha 

mangiferae) was highest (84.6) at the base of the tree trunk in February and lowest 

(0.58) in December. Leaf hopper (Amritodus atkinsoni) appeared in March and 

reached its peak (87.9/10 leaves) in June. The incidence of (Inderbella 

quadrinatala) ranged from 1.2 (July) to 8.6 ribbons/plant (January). Gall formation by 

Apsylla cistellata started in July and gradually increased during August, September 

and October. Fruit fly (Dacus dorsalis [Bactrocera dorsalis]) was first observed in 

April with 3% infestation, gradually increased in May (8.2%) and June (9.8%) and 

slightly declined in July (8.3%). The maggots fed on fruit pulp, resulting in premature 

fruit falling. 

All-Asia Hardy 1983 Taxonomic information is given, with keys, on 48 species (in 6 genera) of the tribe 

Euphrantini from Indonesia, New Guinea, the Bismarck Islands and the Solomon 

Islands. The genus Euphranta contains many fruit-infesting species, including E. 

japonica (Ito) on cherry in Japan, E. skinneri Hardy on cucurbits in the Philippines, 

E. cassiae (Munro) on the pods of Cassia fistula in India, besides the species 

described here from Indonesia and New Guinea, for which the food-plants are not 

given. 


B. correcta Tamil Nadu Jalaluddin et al. 1999 B. correcta was recorded for the first time in Tamil Nadu, in 1995, where it caused 

guava fruit damage ranging from 60 to 80%. The adults laid their eggs in the fruit 

causing blemishes and discoloration and the larvae bored inside the fruit. The other 

principle species recorded were B. dorsalis and B. zonata, although they were not 

as abundant as B. correcta. 

B. dorsalis, B. 

carambolae 

Kapoor et al. 1977 A zoogeographical analysis of species of fruit-flies of the family Tephritidae occurring in India 

is presented. Only 139 species, of 58 genera, 11 tribes and 4 subfamilies have so far been 

recorded from India out of a world total of 4000 species. Some 54% of the species are 

endemic to the country, but none of the genera is endemic. Of the species known from India, 

129 are Oriental, 4 Palaearctic, 1 Ethiopian and 5 known throughout the world. The genus 

mostly widely represented in India is Dacus (Bactrocera?) (31 species). 

India Kapoor et al. 1981 This monograph from India provides a review of the taxonomy, biology and 

distribution of the Tephritidae in the Indian subcontinent, where different species are 

of economic importance as pests of fruit, vegetables and ornamental plants, but are 

also important as potential or actual agents for the biological control of weeds. The 

topics dealt with include diagnostic features of the family and affinities with other 

Diptera; supergeneric categories and taxonomic treatment; methods of collecting, 

preserving and preparing for study; bionomics; taxonomic terminology; a historical 

review; a key to the genera in the subcontinent; and an annotated list of the species 

there, providing information on their distribution and food-plants. 

Andaman 

Islands 

Khalid 1999 Variations in the aculeus length and aculeus length to discal cell length ratio in 

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in different localities (Hawaii, India and Thailand from 

Taiwan, type locality) are discussed. Similarly, the variation in Bactrocera 

carambolae (Drew and Hancock) in different localities (Malaysia, Suriname and 

Andaman Islands) are also discussed. 

Dacus sp. Mandarin West Bengal Konar and Ghosh 1991 The incidence of about 20 insect pests on Citrus reticulata [mandarins] at 11 

orchards in West Bengal, India, in June and September 1985 is reported. 

Phyllocnistis citrella, Anoplophora versteegi, Dacus sp., Rhynchocoris humeralis 

and Papilio demoleus were among the most abundant pests. 


B. cucurbitae Mogekai Karnataka Kumar 2002 A study was conducted in Karnataka during 1996-97 and 1997-98 to record insect 

pests and their extent of damage and peak period of activity on summer vegetables 

namely, radish, aubergine, tomato, bhendi (Abelmoschus esculentus) and mogekai. 

Flea beetle (Phyllotreta downesi) was found feeding on radish leaves. An average 

of 8.0 beetles/plant with minimum and maximum of 2.0 and 30.0 per plant, 

respectively, was recorded. The peak beetle incidence was recorded during the 

month of March. Adults of Monolepta signata were also found feeding on the leaves 

with very low population levels (1.0-5.0 beetles/plant). The incidence of pumpkin 

beetle (Aulacophora foveicollis), leaf miner (Liriomyza trifolii), and fruit fly 

(Bactrocera cucurbitae) was observed on mogekai. Adult activity of the pumpkin 

beetle was recorded during February-April. About 1-4 adults per vine were found 

feeding on the leaves. An average of 13% leaf damage was recorded. About 16.7% 

fruit fly damage was recorded on fruits. The incidence of leafhopper (Amrasca 

devastans [Amrasca biguttula biguttula]), and shoot and fruit borer (Leucinodes 

orbonalis) was observed on aubergine. An average of 3.0 leafhoppers/plant and 

33.1% of fruit damage was recorded. In tomato, the incidence of serpentine leaf 

miner (Liriomyza trifolii) and fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera) was observed. Leaf 

and shoot infestation was 67.0% and 58.4%, respectively. Fruit damage was 24.5%. 

Fruit borer (Earias vitella) was observed in bhendi with fruit damage ranging from 

8.0 to 14.0%. 

B. correcta Grape Karnataka Mani 1992 Fruit flies identified as Bactrocera correcta were recorded on grapevine in 

Karnataka, India, in 1990 and 1991. This was the first record of this pest on vines in 

India or elsewhere. No natural enemies were recorded. 

B. cucurbitae Cowpea, yard 

long bean 

Vellanikkara, 

Kerala 

Mathew et al. 1999 B. cucurbitae was found infesting wilted cucumber and bitter gourd [Momordica 

charantia] vines in Vellanikkara, Kerala, during November to December 1998. It was 

also found in pods of cowpea and yard long bean [Vigna unguiculata subsp. 

sesquipedalis]. This is the first report of B. cucurbitae infesting vines of cucumber 

and bitter gourd and the first report in cowpea pods. 


B. dorsalis Terminalia 

procera, T. 

manii, 

Artocarpus sp., 

Syzygium sp. 

Bactrocera Spondias 

pinnata, 

Strychnos 

andamanensis, 

S. 

andamanensis 

North, Middle 

and South 

Andaman 

Andaman 

and Nicobar 


B. albistrigata Guava Nicobar 


B. cucurbitae Tomato South 

Andaman 

B. carambolae Papaya South 

Andaman 

6 Bactrocera spp. 12 hosts 

including 

cloves 

Andaman 

and Nicobar 


Ranganath et al. 1994 Bactrocera dorsalis A was collected for the first time from the islands of North, 

Middle and South Andaman on guava and mango. B. dorsalis A was also found on 

Terminalia procera, T. manii, Artocarpus sp. and Syzygium sp. in South Andaman. It 

was not found on carambola [Averrhoa carambola]. 

Ranganath et al. 1995 A survey of the fruit fly fauna in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands revealed 11 

species belonging to the genus Bactrocera. Three species reared, one each from 

Spondias pinnata and Strychnos andamanensis, and one from S. andamanensis 

and several cucurbits, are probably new to science. 

Ranganath et al. 1996 Bactrocera albistrigata was collected for the first time in September 1991 in N. 

Nicobar Islands from a heavily infested guava crop. 

Ranganath et al. 1996 B. cucurbitae was recently recorded infesting tomato in South Andaman. 

Ranganath et al. 1997 Papaya [pawpaw] was recorded as a new host for Bactrocera carambolae in South 

Andaman, India. The most infested fruit contained 32 larvae. 

Ranganath et al. 1999 In the second part of the ongoing survey of the fruit fly fauna of the Andaman and 

Nicobar islands (June 1993 to January 1996), 6 species of dacines belonging to the 

genus Bactrocera are added. B. (Bulladacus) mcgregori was reared from Gnetum 

gnemon, B. (Gymnodacus) calophylli was reared from Calophyllum inophyllum, 

while B. (Bactrocera) sp. nr. latilineola and B. (Zeugodacus) incisa were obtained by 

trapping. Of the two undescribed species recorded, one was reared from Momordica 

cochinchinensis and Trichosanthes tricuspidata (Cucurbitaceae) and the other was 

caught in methyl eugenol traps. Additional host records of B. (Bactrocera) 

carambolae (Polyalthia longifolia and Fagraea racemosa) and B. (Bactrocera) 

albistrigata (Syzygium spp. including cloves, Scolopia spinosa, P. longifolia, C. 

inophyllum, Guettarda speciosa and Aglaia argentea) were identified. B. albistrigiata 

was found seriously to attack guavas on Great Nicobar Island. 


B. carambolae Andaman 


Ranganath et al. 2000 The fruit fly B. carambolae, known to attack a wide range of tropical fruits, occurs in 

the Andaman Islands. There is a considerable risk that it will reach mainland India, 

where it is likely to have little immediate effect on the cultivation of the major fruit 

crops, although it is possible that it may adapt to them. 

B. correcta Mango, sapota Gujarat Shah and Vora 1975 B. correcta (Bez.) was found attacking the fruits of mango and chiku [Achras zapota] in the 

Bulsar district of Gujarat. This appears to be the first record of the Tephritid in Gujarat and on 

chiku in India. 


Section 7: Estimates of Percentage Losses to Fruit Flies 

Given as minimum and maximum values (both the same if only a central estimate given), and mean calculated with an "inserted" value if the estimate was only min 

or max 

"Inserted": When only a lower (or upper) estimate was given, its counterpart upper (or lower) is the mean of itself and 100 (or 0) 

"P": protection as N = none, R = resistance, S = cover sprays, M = MAT, B = BAT, I = IPM 

When for arable crops dates of sowing but not infestation were given this was taken as one month later. 

"Summer" was taken as July. When more than one month cited (eg "in March-June") the last was used 

Actual Inserted 

Host Min Max Min Max Mean Prot Location Month Author Date Fly 

Guava 16 16 16 16 16 M Kashmir ix Makhmoor and Singh 1998 

Guava 20 20 60 40 N Haryana Rana et al. 1990 B. zonatus 

Guava 82 82 82 82 82 N Kashmir ix Makhmoor and Singh 1998 

Guava 30 40 30 40 35 N S. Gujarat vii-ix ARS, Gandevi, pers. comm. 2001 

Guava 60 80 60 80 70 N Tamil Nadu - Jalaluddin et al. 1999 

Guava 6 90 6 90 48 N Tamil Nadu - Anon. 

Guava 61 68 61 68 65 N Mann 1996 B. dorsalis 

Guava 19 42 19 42 31 N/R Punjab vii-ix Arora et al. 1998 

Guava 10 5 10 8 R Haryana Rana et al. 1990 B. zonatus 

Guava 10 20 10 20 15 R Haryana Rana et al. 1990 B. zonatus 

Guava 16 22 16 22 19 S Mann 1996 B. dorsalis 

Jujube 47 47 47 47 47 N Bawal - Dashad et al. 1997 

Jujube 72 72 72 72 72 N Bawal I Dashad et al. 1999 

Jujube 13 13 13 13 13 N Bawal xi Dashad et al. 1999 

Jujube 13.2 13.2 13 13 13 N Bawal, Haryana xi Dashad et al. 1999 

Jujube 71.6 71.6 72 72 72 N Bawal, Haryana I Dashad et al. 1999 

Jujube 13.2 13.2 13 13 13 N Bawal, Haryana xi Dashad et al. 1999 C. vesuviana 

Jujube 71.6 71.6 72 72 72 N Bawal, Haryana I Dashad et al. 1999 C. vesuviana 

Jujube 50 50 75 63 N Delhi - Sharma et al. 1998 


Jujube 20 20 60 40 N Gujarat xi,xii Bagle 1992 

Jujube 77 77 77 77 77 N Gujarat iii Patel 

Jujube 32 32 32 32 32 N Gujarat - Patel 

Jujube 75 38 75 56 N Gujarat - GAU pers.comm. 2001 

Jujube 20 20 20 20 20 N Gujarat xi Bagle 1992 

Jujube 56.2 56.2 56 56 56 N Haryana X Lakra and Singh 1983 Carpomyia vesuviana 

Jujube 46.8 46.8 47 47 47 N Haryana Dashad et al. 1999 Carpomyia vesuviana 

Jujube 51 51 76 63 N Karnataka Balikai 1999 B. correcta 

Jujube 22 22 22 22 22 N N. Gujarat iii Patel 

Jujube 50 50 75 63 N New Delhi Sharma et al. 1998 Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube 73 73 73 73 73 N Singh 1984 Carpomyia vesuviana 

Jujube 30 40 30 40 35 N/R Delhi - Sharma et al. 1998 

Jujube 22 22 22 22 22 N/R Gujarat - Patel 

Jujube 49 49 49 49 49 R Abohar Arora et al. 1999 Carpomyia vesuviana 



Jujube 1 10 1 10 6 R Delhi - Sharma et al. 1998 

Jujube 16 16 16 16 16 R Gujarat - Patel 

Jujube 10 5 10 8 R New Delhi Sharma et al. 1998 Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube 40 40 40 40 40 R Punjab - Arora et al. 

Jujube 33 33 33 33 33 R Punjab - Arora et al. 1999 

Jujube 49 49 49 49 49 R Punjab - Arora et al. 1999 

Jujube 13 13 13 13 13 R Rajasthan - Faroda 1996 

Jujube 13 13 13 13 13 R Faroda 1996 Carpomyia vesuviana 

Jujube 6.7 6.7 7 7 7 R Singh 1984 Carpomyia vesuviana 

Jujube 3 3 3 3 3 S Bawal - Dashad et al. 1999 

Jujube 8.8 8.8 9 9 9 S Gujarat Patel et al. 1990 Carypomyia 

vesuviana 



vesuviana 


vesuviana 

Jujube 15 15 15 15 15 S Gujarat Patel et al. 1990 Carypomyia 

vesuviana 


vesuviana 

Jujube 2.9 2.9 3 3 3 S Haryana Dashad et al. 1999 Carpomyia vesuviana 

Jujube 8 4 8 6 S Hisar - Lakra et al. 1991 

Jujube 13.7 13.7 14 14 14 S New Delhi Gyi et al. 2003 Carpomyia vesuviana 




Jujube 11 11 11 11 11 S New Delhi Gyi et al. 2003 Carpomyia vesuviana 

Jujube 4.6 9.3 5 9 7 S Uttar Pradesh Singh et al. 2000 Carpomya vesuviana 

Jujube 6.3 6.3 6 6 6 S Uttar Pradesh Singh et al. 2000 Carpomya vesuviana 

Lemon 61 31 61 46 U Punjab viii Goel et al. 1983 B. dorsalis 

Mango 1 2 1 2 2 I Karnataka - Shukla et al. 1984 

Mango 2 3 2 3 3 I Karnataka - Shukla et al. 1984 

Mango 5 5 5 5 5 I Karnataka - IIHR pers. comm. 2001 

Mango 5 7 5 7 6 I Karnataka - Tandon and Verghese 1996 

Mango 70 35 70 53 N Bihar - Kumar 1995 

Mango 30 50 30 50 40 N C. Gujarat - GAU pers.comm. 2001 

Mango 19 19 19 19 19 N C. Gujarat - Bagle 1996 



Mango 27 27 27 27 27 N Gujarat - Kumar et al. 1994 

Mango 3 3 3 3 3 N Kanpur iv Dwivedi et al. 2003 

Mango 8.2 8.2 8 8 8 N Kanpur V Dwivedi et al. 2003 


Mango 9.8 9.8 10 10 10 N Kanpur vi Dwivedi et al. 2003 

Mango 8.3 8.3 8 8 8 N Kanpur vii Dwivedi et al. 2003 

Mango 26 31 26 31 29 N Karnataka - Shukla et al. 1984 

Mango 30 80 30 80 55 N Karnataka - IIHR pers. comm. 2001 

Mango 31 86 31 86 59 N Punjab - Mann 1966 

Mango 30 40 30 40 35 N S. Gujarat vi, vii GAU pers.comm. 2001 

Mango 20 35 20 35 28 R Gujarat - GAU pers.comm. 2001 

Mango 4 10 4 10 7 R - Singh 1990 

Mango 7 7 7 7 7 S C. Gujarat - Bagle 1996 



Mango 5 5 5 5 5 S Gujarat - GAU pers.comm. 2001 

Mango 3 3 3 3 3 U Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh iv Dwivedi et al. 2003 B. dorsalis 

Mango 8.2 8.2 8 8 8 U Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh V Dwivedi et al. 2003 B. dorsalis 

Mango 9.8 9.8 10 10 10 U Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vi Dwivedi et al. 2003 B. dorsalis 

Mango 8.3 8.3 8 8 8 U Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh vii Dwivedi et al. 2003 B. dorsalis 

Mogekai 16.7 16.7 17 17 17 N Karnataka - Kumar 2003 

Moringa 48 49 48 49 49 N Coimbatore, Tamil 

Nadu 

ix Murthy and Regupathy 1995 Gitona sp. 

Moringa 13 20 13 20 17 N Coimbatore, Tamil 

Nadu 

xii Murthy and Regupathy 1995 Gitona sp. 

Moringa 23.4 23.4 23 23 23 N Coimbatore, Tamil 

Nadu 

ii Murthy and Regupathy 1995 Gitona sp. 

Moringa 23.4 12 23 18 N Coimbatore, Tamil 

Nadu 

vi Murthy and Regupathy 1995 Gitona sp. 

Moringa 23 23 23 23 23 N Tamil Nadu iii-vi Murthy and Regupathy 1992 

Moringa 12 23 12 23 18 N Tamil Nadu i, ii Murthy and Regupathy 1992 

Moringa 13 20 13 20 17 N Tamil Nadu xi,xii Murthy and Regupathy 1992 

Moringa 48 49 48 49 49 N Tamil Nadu Viii, ix Murthy and Regupathy 1992 

Moringa 15 15 15 15 15 N Tamil Nadu - Ragumoorthy et al. 1998 


Moringa 10 10 10 10 10 S Tamil Nadu - Ragumoorthy et al. 1998 

Narangi 24 24 24 24 24 U Punjab viii Goel et al. 1983 B. dorsalis 

Peach 41.7 41.7 42 42 42 N Himachal Pradesh Sharma et al. 1973 B. dorsalis, B. 

cucurbitae, D. ciliatus 

Peach 3.45 3.45 3 3 3 S Himachal Pradesh Sharma et al. 1973 B. dorsalis, B. 


Peach 8.11 8.11 8 8 8 S Himachal Pradesh Sharma et al. 1973 B. dorsalis, B. 


Phalsa 64 64 64 64 64 N Punjab - Mann 1994 

Sapota 30 50 30 50 40 N S. Gujarat vii-ix GAU pers.comm. 2001 

Bitter gourd 60 60 60 60 60 N H. Pradesh Vii,ix Gupta et al. 1992 

Bitter gourd 80 80 80 80 80 N H. Pradesh vii,viii Gupta et al. 1992 

Bitter gourd 47 47 47 47 47 N Kerala - Dale and Jiji 1997 

Bitter gourd 31.3 31.3 31 31 31 N Singh et al. 2000 B. cucurbitae 

Bitter gourd 87 87 87 87 87 N Ravindranath and Pillai 1986 B. cucurbitae 

Bitter gourd 37 53 37 53 45 S Ravindranath and Pillai 1986 B. cucurbitae 

Bitter gourd 59 59 59 59 59 S Ravindranath and Pillai 1986 B. cucurbitae 

Cucumber 13 13 13 13 13 B Bangladesh - Nasir Uddin et al. 2000 

Cucumber 2 2 2 2 2 M Bangladesh - Nasir Uddin et al. 2000 

Cucumber 20 20 20 20 20 N Assam x-iii Borah 1996 

Cucumber 28 28 28 28 28 N Assam vi-x Borah 1996 

Cucumber 39 39 39 39 39 N Assam - Borah 1996 

Cucumber 27.6 27.6 28 28 28 N Assam iv Borah 1996 B. cucurbitae 

Cucumber 59.5 59.5 60 60 60 N Assam vii Borah 1996 B. cucurbitae 

Cucumber 20.3 20.3 20 20 20 N Assam ix Borah 1996 B. cucurbitae 

Cucumber 22 22 22 22 22 N Bangladesh - Nasir Uddin et al. 2000 

Cucumber 80 80 80 80 80 N H. Pradesh vii,viii Gupta et al. 1992 

Cucumber 53 53 53 53 53 N Karnataka - IIHR pers. comm. 2001 

Cucumber 39 39 39 39 39 N South Andaman Ranganath et al. 1997 B. cucurbitae 

Cucumber 21 21 21 21 21 S Karnataka - IIHR pers. comm. 2001 


Cucumber 6.2 6.2 6 6 6 S South Andaman Ranganath et al. 1997 B. cucurbitae 

Little gourd 100 50 100 75 N Gujarat - Farmer pers.comm. 2001 

Little gourd 63 32 63 47 N Gujarat - Patel 1994 

Little gourd 45 45 45 45 45 N Gujarat iii Patel and Patel 1996 

Little gourd 46 46 46 46 46 N Gujarat iv Patel and Patel 1996 

Little gourd 38 38 38 38 38 N Gujarat vi Patel and Patel 1996 

Little gourd 3 100 3 100 52 N Gujarat - Patel 1996 

Little gourd 5 5 5 5 5 S Gujarat - Farmer pers.comm. 2001 

Little gourd 0 0 0 50 25 S Gujarat - Patel 1994 

Melon 76 100 76 100 88 N Rajasthan - Pareek and Kavadia 1995 

Melon 51 75 51 75 63 R Rajasthan - Pareek and Kavadia 1995 

Musk melon 51 75 51 75 63 N Rajasthan Pareek and Kavadia 1995 B. cucubitae 

Musk melon 76 100 76 100 88 N than Pareek and Kavadia 1995 B. cucubitae 

Pumpkin 26.7 39.3 27 39 33 N - Saikia and Nath 2002 

Pumpkin 26.7 39.3 27 39 33 N Saikia and Nath 2002 

Ridge gourd 0 0 0 50 25 N Gujarat - GAU, pers.comm 2001 

Ridge gourd 0 0 0 50 25 N Gujarat - Farmer, pers.comm 2001 

Ridge gourd 32.9 32.9 33 33 33 N South Andaman Ranganath et al. 1997 B. cucurbitae 

Ridge gourd 9.1 9.5 9 10 9 S South Andaman Ranganath et al. 1997 B. cucurbitae 

Snake gourd 4.9 8.6 5 9 7 B Bangladesh Nasiruddin and Karim 1992 B. cucurbitae 

Snake gourd 63 63 63 63 63 N Assam - Borah and Dutta 1997 

Snake gourd 62.6 62.6 63 63 63 N Assam Borah and Dutta 1997 B. tau, Callantra 

Snake gourd 22.5 22.5 23 23 23 N Bangladesh Nasiruddin and Karim 1992 B. cucurbitae 

Sponge gourd 50 50 50 50 50 N H. Pradesh Vii,ix Gupta et al. 1992 

Watermelon 28.6 28.6 29 29 29 N Singh et al. 2000 B. cucurbitae 

Watermelon 38.8 38.8 39 39 39 R Jabalpur, Madhya 

Pradesh 

vii Choubey et al. 2002 B. cucurbitae 

Gen. Cucurbits 75 75 75 75 75 N Bihar iv-ix Farmer, pers.comm 2001 

Gen. Cucurbits 40 80 40 80 60 N Delhi vii-x Pruthi 1941 


Gen. Cucurbits 10 20 10 20 15 N Orissa - CHES pers. comm. 2001 

Gen. Cucurbits 25 30 25 30 28 N Overall - IIHR pers. comm. 2001 

Gen. Cucurbits 10 25 10 25 18 S Bihar iv-ix Farmer, pers.comm 2001 


Section 8: Population Dynamics and Ecology 

Fly Host Location Authors Date Summary 

B. zonata Northern Bihar Agarwal and Kumar 1999 Studies on the population dynamics of peach fruit fly, B. zonata, were conducted during April- 

August 1997 in northern Bihar. Maximum fly populations were observed during the third week of 

June (357.0 flies/trap), whereas the lowest numbers were observed during the last week of August 

(14.3 flies/trap). Fly populations showed a positive correlation with maximum and minimum 

temperatures, rainfall and a negative correlation with relative humidity. 

B. cucurbitae Agarwal et al. 1987 Green, tender fruits are preferred for oviposition and females lay up to 200 eggs. Adults overwinter 

in November-December and the pest is most active in July-August. 

B. dorsalis Northen Bihar Agarwal et al. 1995 The effects of maximum and minimum temperature and relative humidity on the population 

dynamics of B. dorsalis were studied in northern Bihar in 1990-91. The pest population was not 

affected by relative humidity; however, it was highest when the temperature was between 25 and 

38°C, and significant positive correlations were observed between maximum temperature and pest 

population, and minimum temperature and pest population. 


zonata 

Pusa,Bihar Agarwal et al. 1999 Adult males of B. dorsalis and B. zonata were trapped using the attractant methyl eugenol, bait 

(protein hydrolysate) and malathion 50 e.c. between April and August 1997, at Pusa, Bihar. The 

average number of these flies trapped during the experimentation period was 39.94 and 134.92 

flies per trap per week, respectively. The average mean population of B. zonata was 3.38 times 

greater than that of B. dorsalis, which indicated population suppression of B. dorsalis by B. zonata. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Gujarat Bagle 1992 The incidence of Carpomyia vesuviana on Ziziphus mauritiana was studied in Gujarat, and 

attempts were made to determine suitable control measures. Pest attack started around mid- 

October and increased suddenly in mid-November (average incidence over 20%), continuing until 

December. Of several insecticides tested, fenvalerate at 0.005% and decamethrin [deltamethrin] at 

0.0015% were the most effective and consistent in reducing infestation, followed by monocrotophos 

and phosphamidon at 0.05%. 

B. dorsalis Mango Karnataka Bagle and Prasad 1983 Traps with 100ml of an emulsion containing 0.1% methyl eugenol and 0.255 malathion were used 

and weekly counts were made. It was found that population was greatest during March, April, May 

and June with average monthly catches per trap of 1268, 270, 416 and 487 flies, respectively. The 

lowest catches were made in January, August and December, with average monthly catches per 

trap of 42, 71 and 72 flies, respectively. 


B. cucurbitae Bhagat and Koul 1999 The seasonal biology of melon fruit fly, B. cucurbitae, was studied during pre-monsoon (April-June), 

monsoon (July-September) and post-monsoon (October-December). Field-collected adults of B. 

cucurbitae were housed in glass tubes with fresh slices of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), 

examined after 24h and their eggs collected. Eggs were placed on fresh bottle gourd slices kept on 

water-soaked filter papers and observed for hatching. Freshly hatched maggots were transferred 

on bottle gourd slices in glass tubes. At the onset of pupation, the slices were placed in tubes with 

water-soaked sand 50 mesh layer to facilitate pupation. Results revealed that incubation, larval and 

pupal periods were lowest during the pre-monsoon (1.00, 4.96 and 6.94 days, respectively) 

followed by monsoon and post-monsoon periods. Pre-oviposition and oviposition periods were 

lower in pre-monsoon (11.06 and 12.12 days, respectively) than in monsoon and post-monsoon 

periods. Adult emergence was highest in the pre-monsoon (80%), followed by monsoon (74.4%) 

and post-monsoon (62.7%) periods. 

B. cucurbitae Cucumber Assam Borah 1996 Field trials showed that the highest yield of cucumber (87.4 q/ha), with 27.6% infestation by B. 

cucurbitae, was recorded in the summer-sown crop (20 March), followed by the kharif-sown crop 

(27 June, 59.5 q/ha, 39.1% infestation). In the rabi-sown crop (10 October), the yield was lowest 

(27.7 q/ha); infestation was 20.3%. 

B. tau, Callantra 

sp. 

Snake gourd, 

ash gourd, 

bottle gourd, 

pumpkin 

Assam Borah and Dutta 1997 Infestations by tephritids were studied on ash gourd (Benincasa hispida), bitter gourd (Momordica 

charantia), bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), cucumber, pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata), ridge 

gourd (Luffa acutangula) and snake gourd (Trichosanthes cucumerina) in kharif and summer. B. 

tau and Callantra [B.] sp. were found infesting these vegetables. Snake gourd had the highest fruit 

infestation (62.62%). Larger proportions of marketable fruits (healthy + lightly infested) were 

obtained from ash gourd in kharif and bottle gourd in summer. Snake gourd and pumpkin yielded 

the lowest proportions of marketable fruits. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Bawal, Haryana Dashad et al. 1999 The incidence of ber fruitfly, Carpomyia vesuviana on 13-year-old trees of Zizyphus mauritiana cv. 

Gola in Bawal, Haryana, ranged from 12.0 to 78.5% between 1993/94 and 1995/96. The lowest 

mean incidence (13.2%) was recorded during the first fortnight of November, while the peak 

(71.6%) occurred during the first fortnight of January and was synchronized with the ripening of 

fruits. The intensity of incidence was determined by the surviving fruitfly population in preceding 

years. Higher fruit fly incidence was recorded when the maximum temperature ranged from 17.0 to 

25.0°C and the minimum from 2.3 to 4.8°C. The optimum relative humidity range was 62.0 to 

85.5%. 


B. dorsalis Mango Kanpur, Uttar 

Pradesh 

Dwivedi et al. 2003 Investigations were carried out during 1997-98 at Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India to monitor the 

seasonal incidence of insect pests of 20-year-old mango trees in relation to mean temperature and 

humidity. The population of mealy bug (Drosicha mangiferae) was highest (84.6) at the base of the 

tree trunk in February and lowest (0.58) in December. Leaf hopper (Amritodus atkinsoni) appeared 

in March and reached its peak (87.9/10 leaves) in June. The incidence of (Inderbella quadrinatala) 

ranged from 1.2 (July) to 8.6 ribbons/plant (January). Gall formation by Apsylla cistellata started in 

July and gradually increased during August, September and October. Fruit fly (B. dorsalis) was first 

observed in April with 3% infestation, gradually increased in May (8.2%) and June (9.8%) and 

slightly declined in July (8.3%). The maggots fed on fruit pulp, resulting in premature fruit falling. 

Mango Maharastra Godse and Bhole 2002 Studies on natural incidence of fruit flies on Alphonso mango indicated (at Maharastra) that the 

fruits harvested before June were free from fruitfly infestation also showed that regular collection 

and destruction of fallen, ripe or decaying fruits can reduce fruit fly population in orchards as 

fruitflies preffred the ripening fruits for egg laying. 

B. zonata Grewal and Kapoor 1987 Methyl eugenol used as a bait in a new collapsable fruitfly trap (GK trap) in the field found that the 

number of flies/catch ranged from 150 to 700. B. zonatus was the dominant sp., accounting for up 

to 98% of the catch. 


zonata 

Mango, guava Himachal 

Pradesh 

Gupta and Bhatia 2001 The fruit fly (B. dorsalis and B. zonata) population was monitored with the help of bottle traps 

containing 100 ml aqueous solution of 0.1% methyl eugenol and 0.25% malathion per trap, in 

mango and guava orchards of submountainous region of Himachal Pradesh. The maximum catch 

of 98.6 and 62.6 males/trap for mixed population was recorded during 30th and 27th standard 

weeks in 1992 and 1993, respectively, in mango orchard. The corresponding catch in guava 

orchard was 427.2 and 517.0 during the 37th and 39th standard weeks. There was a significant 

positive correlation between the trap catch and maximum and minimum temperatures during both 

the years for both the hosts. The maximum catch coincided with the ripening period of fruits. 


Mango, guava Tirupati, Andhra 

Pradesh 

Jalaluddin and 

Sarada 

B. dorsalis Mango Karnataka Jayanthi and 

Verghese 

2001 Experiments on the seasonal abundance and population dynamics of fruit flies (Bactrocera spp.) 

were conducted in orchards located in Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India from September 1999 to 

March 2000 (guava), and from February to July 2000 (mango). The peak fly population in the 

mango orchard was observed from May to July, coinciding with the fruit maturity period. The lowest 

population was recorded in February (34 flies), while the highest population was observed in July 

2000 (235 flies). The fly population was positively correlated with minimum temperature and 

rainfall, and negatively correlated with the relative humidity. In the guava orchard, the highest 

(223.5 flies) and lowest (11.0 flies) populations were recorded during November 1999 and March 

2000, respectively. The fly population in the guava orchard was positively correlated with the 

relative humidity and rainfall, while it was negatively correlated with the maximum temperature. 

1998 Hourly fluctuations in trap catch (baited with methyl eugenol + carbaryl) of B. dorsalis in a mango 

orchard in Karnataka were monitored. Catches were maximum in the afternoon, with a peak 

between 16.00 and 17.00h. There were no catches between 19.00 and 06.00h. 

B. correcta Mango, sapota Gujarat Kumar et al. 1997 In a field study in 1992-94 in Gujarat in mango and sapota [Manilkara zapota, sapodilla] orchards, 

the seasonal activity of B. correcta was examined using traps baited with methyl eugenol. B. 

correcta were trapped throughout the year in the mango and sapota orchards. In mango orchards, 

trappings peaked during the second fortnight of April (453 fruit flies/trap) and the second fortnight of 

May (483 fruit flies/trap). Major activity of the pest occurred from March to June, coinciding with the 

fruiting period. The pest activity was positively correlated with temperature (maximum, minimum 

and average). Other environmental factors did not have any significant impact. In sapota orchards, 

the pest activity coincided with the fruiting period during April to September. The trappings peaked 

during the first fortnight of June (580 fruit flies/trap). The pest activity was positively correlated with 

temperature (minimum and average), relative humidity (evening and average) and negatively with 

sunshine hours. 


C. vesuviana Jujube Haryana Lakra and Singh 1983 The oviposition behaviour of Carpomyia vesuviana Costa on ber (Ziziphus mauritiana), fruit 

deformity resulting from infestation and the incidence of the pest were studied in Haryana, India, 

between 1979 and 1981. Females preferred to oviposit in the distal or central part of the fruit. 

Oviposition inhibited growth in the surrounding tissues, causing protuberances and/or depressions 

in the fruit. Deformity was most apparent in young fruits with oviposition holes. Fruits smaller than 9 

X 4.5 mm were avoided by females, while almost 50% of fruits measuring 20 X 9 mm contained 

oviposition holes during October. A maximum of 55.15% of fruits contained a single larva, while 

37.16% contained 2 or 3. Only 0.08% of fruits contained 7 or 8 larvae. A total of 45% of fruits was 

infested by 2-8 larvae at some stage during of their development. Of the infested fruits, 21.83% 

were collected from the southern side of trees, while only 5.27% were taken from the northern side; 

the percentages taken from the eastern and western sides were almost equal (14.6 and 14.5, 

respectively). The pest was most abundant in December and least abundant in March. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Hisar, Haryana Lakra and Singh 1985 Field observations in Hisar, Haryana, India, in 1979-81 on the seasonal incidence of Carpomyia 

vesuviana, an important pest of jujube (Ziziphus spp.), are described. Activity of different stages of 

the tephritid continued at temperatures of -1.7-46.7°C and relative humidities of 5-100%. Extremes 

of meteorological conditions had a greater effect on adult activity than on larval activity. An increase 

in the daily maximum temperature to >40°C, together with a low relative humidity (20-30%) was 

unfavourable for pest development. A drop in temperature to

B. dorsalis Mango Ludhiana, 

Punjab 

Mann 1996 B. dorsalis flies were observed throughout the year in methyl eugenol baited traps in a mango 

orchard in Ludhiana, Punjab, India. Population counts were low in the winter months from 

December to February which was thought to be caused by low temperature (below 20°C). 

Following the warmer season, the flies rebuilt their population throughout the rest of the year. 

However, low catches in July may be due to the after-effects of high temperatures in June 

(31.93°C) or due to high rainfall (223 mm/month). Afterwards, increases in fruit fly catches may be 

attributed to conducive temperature (24-29°C) and abundant supply of host fruits. The fruit fly 

counts on the mango fruits during July were greatest at 1100 h and 1200 h. Fruit fly infestation was 

30.77, 65 and 85.50% in cultivars Dusheri, Sucking and Chausa, respectively. 

B. dorsalis Sand pear Punjab Mann 1997 Studies on the incidence of B. dorsalis on sand pear (Pyrus pyrifolia) in isolated and mixed 

orchards in Indian Punjab revealed that there were 3.73 and 14.89 times more insects in fruits and 

pupal counts per kilogram fruits in mixed orchards than in isolated orchards. Similarly, adult counts 

in methyl eugenol baited traps were higher (16.63 times) in mixed orchards than in isolated 

orchards. Based on egg punctures and pupal counts, isolated orchards were more profitable than 

mixed orchards. 

B. dorsalis Peach Punjab Mann and Bindra 1977 Field incidence of B. dorsalis Hendel on different cultivars of peach (Prunus persica) at Ludhiana 

(Punjab)studies over two years with eleven varieties, Florida Sun had the lowest average 

infestation; generally, infestation was related to earliness of fruiting, the earlier the variety the lower 

the infestation, except in the midearly variety Sun Red, in which infestation was heavy, possibly 

because the fruit lack hairs. 

Gitona sp. Moringa Coimbatore, 

Tamil Nadu 

Murthy and 

Regupathy 

1995 The population dynamics of Gitona sp. on annual moringa [Moringa oleifera] were investigated in 

Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, in 1984-85. The annual form of this popular vegetable had recently been 

introduced to cultivation in southern India and Gitona sp., previously regarded as a minor pest, had 

become more important. Gitona sp.-damaged fruits were recognised in the initial stages of 

infestation by the presence of gummy exudates, in association with eggs laid in the grooves 

between the ridges of the fruits, and by drying of the fruits in later stages. Gummy exudates were 

also observed following feeding by Oxycetonia versicolor and Anatona stillata. Gitona sp. were 

most numerous in August-September 1984, when 48-49% of fruit were damaged. Incidence 

decreased to 13-20% in November-December. A slight increase in January-February 1985, when 

23.4% of fruits were damaged, was followed by another decrease in March-June. Incidence of 

Gitona sp. was negatively correlated with maximum temperature and hours of sunshine, and 

positively correlated with relative humidity and sunshine of the previous month. 


Meridarchis 

scyrodes, 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube Bijapur, 

Karnataka 

Nandihalli et al. 1996 In a field study in 1995-96 at Bijapur, Karnataka, in Zizyphus mauritiana orchards, Meridarchis 

scyrodes and Carpomyia vesuviana were prevalent from first fortnight of December to first fortnight 

of February. The relationship between pest incidence and temperature was positive while negative 

relationship of the incidence of the pests was found with relative humidity, wind speed and cloud 

cover. M. scyrodes was more damaging than C. vesuviana in all the cultivars evaluated. Cv. Ilaichi 

and Chhuhara fruits recorded lowest pest infestation (1 larva/fruit). 

Dacus ciliatus Gujarat Patel and Patel 1998 Laboratory studies showed that most adults of Dacus ciliatus emerged between 08.00 and 10.00h. 

Very few adults emerged at other times. 

D. ciliatus Gujarat Patel and Patel 1998 A study on the number of generations found that it took 34 to 79 days for completion of one 

generation; seven generation took a year when reared on bitter gourd fruits. 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Maharastra Pawar et al. 1991 Monitoring by using traps baited with the sex attractant tephrit lure. Result showed that the 

numbers caught reached a peak in early October. 

B. correcta Guava Haryana Rana et al. 1993 The influence of temperature and relative humidity on incidence of guava fruit fly infesting guava 

fruits in Haryana were studied and was found that the greatest infestations were recorded in the 

orchard when the temperature and relative humidity were 26-30°C and 70-75%, resp. 

Pumpkin Saikia and Nath 2002 Pumpkins (local variety) were grown at 2-week intervals from 1 September 1996 to 15 January 

1997 under field conditions. The incidence of fruit fly was determined. The fruit fly damage on 

different sowing dates was significant. The fruit fly infestation varied between 26.7 and 39.3%. 

Lowest infestation was in crops sown on October 15, followed by those sown on November 1. 

B. dorsalis Guava Punjab Sandhu et al. 1979 The incidence of B. dorsalis and Dichocrocis punctiferalis on the fruit was determined in 9 guava 

cvs. The former ranged from very low in the cvs Red Flesh and Seedless to very high in the cv. 

Apple and the latter from very low in the cvs Guinea and Red Flesh to very high in the cv. Seedless 

C. vesuviana Sangwan and Lakra 1992 In the laboratory, the optimum temperature for pupal development in the tephritid Carpomyia 

vesuviana, a pest of Ziziphus mauritiana, was 30°C, leading to high adult emergence (74%) and 

short pupal duration (average 15.65 days). At 10, 16 and 40°C, no adult emergence occurred in 50 

days. The ideal depth for pupation was 3-6 cm below the soil surface, at which adult emergence 

was 82%. Only 15% adult emergence took place at a depth of 45 cm. 


B. correcta Guava Tamil Nadu Sarada et al. 2001 Studies of population fluctuations of the guava fruit fly, B. correcta, were conducted in guava 

orchards in Tamil Nadu from May 1994 to September 1995 using methyl eugenol traps. A distinct 

population peak, which coincided with the ripening, was recorded from July to August in both years. 

Abiotic factors played an important role in regulating B. correcta population. Data on weekly catch 

when correlated with weather parameters showed significant positive correlation with mean 

maximum temperature (r=0.3314), minimum temperature (r=0.3610), day-degrees (thermal units) 

(r=0.3692), morning relative humidity (r=0.4369) and rainfall (r=0.2364). Weekly mean sunshine 

hours had low negative correlation with the catch. 


correcta, B. 

zonata 

Mango Tirupati, Andhra 

Pradesh 

Sarada et al. 2001 An experiment was conducted in a mango orchard to evaluate the different coloured plastic open 

pan traps viz., yellow, white, blue, orange, red and green as attractants for fruit flies such as B. 

dorsalis, B. correcta and B. zonata in three replications at Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, during 2000. 

During the same year another two experiments were conducted with these open pan traps by 

placing them at different heights (0, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 metres) above the ground and at different 

locations in the orchard. An open pan of 60 cm diameter with 7.5 cm depth, along with 0.1% methyl 

eugenol attractant was used for the purpose. Significantly more flies were attracted to white 

(16.953 flies/trap) and yellow (15.317 flies/trap) coloured traps followed by green, orange, red and 

blue, respectively. Lowest number of flies were attracted to blue colour. Traps placed on the ground 

caught significantly most flies (12.433 flies/trap), followed by 1.0m, 2.0m and 1.5m, respectively. 

Traps in the periphery of the orchard attracted more flies (945 flies) than traps in the centre (561 

flies). 

B. dorsalis Guava Karnataka Shukla and Prasad 1985 Abiotic factors played an important role in regulating the fly population. Trap catches were 

significantly and positively correlated with maximum and minimum temperatures day degrees and 

maximum relative humidity.Trap catches were significantly and negatively correlated with minimum 

relative humidity. 

B. dorsalis Mango Pantnagar, Uttar Singh et al. 1997 Methyl eugenol (0.2%) was used to bait 4 traps/acre for 18 weeks (2nd April to 30th July). The 

Pradesh 

largest trap catches of 233 males/week occurred between 18 June and 25 June. 

B. cucurbitae Sood and Nath 1998 An analysis of the seasonal variation in adult sex ratios in a population of B. cucurbitae indicated 

that the ratios were female biased (1:1.23, 1.15 and 1.29) during the spring, autumn and winter 

seasons, respectively, but not during summer. However, Chi-square analysis did not indicate any 

significant departure from a 1:1 ratio during different seasons. Possible reasons for a deviation of 

the sex ratio from the expected 1:1 are also discussed. 


B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Thakur et al. 1994 Stability analysis for economic traits and infestation of melon fruit-fly (B. cucurbitae) in bittergourd 

(Momordica charantia) were studied. 10 cultivars were sown out of which C96 was the most stable 

for fruits/plant and had the lowest incidence of fruit fly infestation. NDBT1 had the most stable 

resistance to B. cucurbitae. 


Section 9: Oviposition, Preference and Survival among Hosts 


B. cucurbitae Agarwal et al. 1987 Green, tender fruits are preferred for oviposition and females lay up to 200 eggs. Adults overwinter in November- 

December and the pest is most active in July-August. 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

B. tau, Callantra Snake gourd, 

ash gourd, 

bottle gourd, 

pumpkin 

Jujube Abohar Arora et al. 1999 Physicochemical characteristics of fruits of eight ber (Ziziphus mauritiana) varieties, Chhuhara, Gola, Elaichi, Kaithli, 

Nazuk, Sanaur 2, Umran and ZG-2 in relation to fruit fly infestation were studied at Abohar. Fruit fly (Carpomyia 

vesuviana) infestation was positively correlated with fruit weight, pulp-stone ratio, total soluble solids (TSS) and total 

sugars, whereas, it was negatively correlated to acidity, vitamin C [ascorbic acid] and total phenols. The varieties 

high in pulp content, TSS, total sugars, low acidity, vitamin C and total phenols were highly susceptible to fruit fly 

attack. The most resistance varieties were Umran (49% incidence), Gola (40%) and ZG-2 (33%). 

Assam Borah and 

Dutta 

B. dorsalis Guava Bose and 

Mehrotra 

B. cucurbitae Musk melon, 

snake gourd, 

ribbed gourd 

Bc? C melo, C 

callosus 

Bc? C melo, C 

callosus 

1997 Infestations by tephritids were studied on ash gourd (Benincasa hispida), bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), bottle 

gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), cucumber, pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata), ridge gourd (Luffa acutangula) and snake 

gourd (Trichosanthes cucumerina) in kharif and summer. B. tau and Callantra [B.] sp. were found infesting these 

vegetables. Snake gourd had the highest fruit infestation (62.62%). Larger proportions of marketable fruits (healthy 

+ lightly infested) were obtained from ash gourd in kharif and bottle gourd in summer. Snake gourd and pumpkin 

yielded the lowest proportions of marketable fruits. 

1986 The maximum pressure exerted by the ovipositor of the tephritid B. dorsalis, attacking guava fruits, was more than 

180 kg/ cm2. Soft fruit samples were infested more than hard fruits. 

Chelliah 1970 The fruits of three cucurbits plants were investigated for their suitability as media for the mass culture of B. 

cucurbitae Coq. in the laboratory. Muskmelon (Cucumis melo) proved the most suitable, snake gourd 

(Trichosanthes anguina) the least so and ribbed gourd (Luffa acutangula) intermediate. 

Chelliah and 

Sambandam 



1971 Resistance in C. callosus, which was compared with the susceptible C. melo varieties Delta Gold and Smith Perfect, 

and the susceptible F1 C. callosus X Delta Gold, appeared to be determined by rind toughness, which was 

associated with high silica content. 

1972 The resistance of the parents and F1, F2 and back-cross progenies of a cross between Cucumis melo and C. 

callosus was investigated. The results indicated that susceptibility is controlled by two complementary dominant 

genes. 


B. cucurbitae C melo, C 

callosus 

B. cucurbitae Melon, wild 

melon 


melon 


melon 

B. cucurbitae Watermelon Jabalpur, 

Madhya 

Pradesh 









1973 Varieties of C. melo, which are highly susceptible to D. cucurbitae, had a higher number of aminoacids than 

resistant, wild C. callosus. Cystine and tyrosine were present in C. melo but not in C. callosus, and histidine, 

glycine, threonine and leucine were present in higher proportions in C. melo. It is concluded that antibiosis in C. 

callosus may be due to low concentrations or imbalance of essential aminoacids. 

1974 Laboratory studies were carried out on the resistance mechanism of antibiosis to B. cucurbitae Coq. in the wild 

melon Cucumis callosus; the highly susceptible muskmelon cultivars Delta Gold and Smith Perfect, and the hybrid 

C. callosus X Delta Gold were used for comparison. When reared on resistant fruit, larval survival, growth index, 

pupal size and weight, the ratio of adult females to males, fecundity and adult life-span were lower, the larval period 

was longer, and there was little effect on the pupal period. 

1974 The highly susceptible C. melo variety Delta Gold and its hybrid with C. callosus were used in tests in the laboratory 

to determine the resistance mechanism to B. cucurbitae in C. callosus. Variation in the number of eggs laid in the 

different fruit types revealed that nonpreference for C. callosus resulted from the combined influence of a tough rind 

and the biochemical properties of the fruit. 

1974 Of 69 muskmelon accessions screened, 9 were resistant, 7 susceptible and the remainder highly susceptible to fruit 

fly. The wild C. callosus, however, was highly resistant, and since it will hybridize with muskmelon it is likely to be of 

value in breeding. 

Choubey et al. 2002 An experiment was conducted in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India during the 1991 summer season to evaluate the 

varietal response of watermelon cultivars MHW-11, Arka Jyoti, MHW-4, MHWHM-101, MHW-6, MHW-5, and 

Madhu, against melon fruit fly (B. cucurbitae). Arka Jyoti was the least susceptible (38.81%) under Jabalpur 

conditions. 

Mango Dan et al. 1989 The hybrids Totapuri X Alphonso (T X A) and Totapuri X Mulgoa (T X M) gave larger fruits with smaller stones than 

their parents. Hybrid T X A had a high fibre content, which made it suitable only for juice production, but was more 

susceptible to fruit fly than its parents. Quality of juice was rated in the order Alphonso > T X A > T X M > Totapuri > 

Mulgoa. Both hybrids had lower sugar:acid ratios than their parents. The hybrid Banganpalli X Alphonso was 

suitable for canned slice production and was rated as superior to Banganpalli and only slightly inferior to Alphonso, 

which has smaller fruits with larger stones than the hybrid. 



cucurbitae 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Mango, 

guava, 

sapota, 

pumpkin, 

bitter gourd, 

squash 

gourd 

B. cucurbitae Pumpkin, 

tinda 

Doharey 1985 Preference of B. dorsalis on fruits of mango, guava and sapota [Manilkara achras] and of D. cucurbitae on pumpkin, 

bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) and squash gourd (Citrullus vulgaris var. fistulosus) was studied, D. dorsalis 

preferred mango, followed by guava and sapota and D. cucurbitae preferred bitter gourd. 

Jujube Faroda 1996 The ber [Ziziphus mauritiana] cultivar Seb was crossed with a local cultivar, Tikadi, resistant to fruit fly (Carpomyia 

vesuviana) in order to develop a pest resistant cultivar. The F1, although 90% resistant, had poor fruit quality. By 

backcrossing to Seb, a BC1 line with 87-90% resistance and desirable fruit characters was obtained. A mean of 

13% fruit fly infestation was observed in this line, along with a high level of antibiosis. Fruits weighed around 16 g 

(4.5 g in the F1) and Brix value was 24°. 

B. tau Peach Punjab Grewal and 

Malhi 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd, 

sponge 

gourd, 

cucumber 


sponge 

gourd, 

cucumber 


sponge 

gourd, 

cucumber 

New Delhi Garg et al. 1979 Comparative suitability of tinda (squash melon) and pumpkin as larval diet for the development of melon fly (B.c.) 

has been carried out with regard to oviposition preference and larval development. No preference between the 2 

fruits was shown by ovipositing females, but the rates of pupation and adult emergence, together with the pupal 

weights of larvae reared on them, indicated that tinda was more favourable to growth and development. 

Gupta and 

Verma 


Verma 


Verma 

1987 Damage to peaches by the tephritid B. zonatus was studied in Punjab. The cultivar Sharbati, which is considered to 

be suitable for the plains of northern India, was highly susceptible to attack by D. zonatus. Up to 89.50% of fruit was 

damaged by B. zonatus. 

1995 The tephritid B. cucurbitae, when reared on 3 cucurbit food plants, namely bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), 

cucumber and sponge gourd (Luffa sp.), showed slight variations in the duration of the egg (1.1-1.8 days) and pupal 

(7.7-9.4 days) stages, but it varied notably in the larval stage, being 6 days on Luffa sp. and 3 days on the 2 other 

hosts. The highest mortality occurred during the egg stage (maximum 20%) on Luffa sp. 

1995 The tephritid B. cucurbitae, when reared on 3 cucurbit food plants, namely bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), 

cucumber and sponge gourd (Luffa sp.), showedthe shortest mean generation time (T = 25.8 days) and highest net 

reproductive rate (Ro = 55.8) had the highest intrinsic rate of increase (0.16) on cucumber. 

1995 The tephritid Bactrocera cucurbitae, when reared on 3 cucurbit food plants - bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), 

cucumber and sponge gourd (Luffa sp.) - showed slight variations in the duration of the egg (1.1-1.8 days) and 

pupal (7.7-9.4 days) stages, but it varied notably in the larval stage, being 6 days on Luffa sp. and 3 days on the 2 

other hosts. 


B. correcta Guava Jalaluddin and 1999 The effect of guava cultivars AC10, Chittidar, Lucknow-46 and Lucknow-49 on B. correcta larval survival, adult 

Sadakathulla eclosion and size were investigated. There was significant variation in larval and pupal periods between cultivars, 

but no significant difference in pupation rates. Percentage adult emergence was higher (90.6%) on the susceptible 

Chittidar cultivar and lower (59.0%) on the resistant cultivar Lucknow-46. Chittidar yielded the largest adult (>2.17 

mm head width). High levels of Vitamin C, total soluble solids and total phenol in the fruits were factors contributing 

to guava resistance to B. correcta. 

B. dorsalis Jayanthi et al. 2001 A study was conducted to determine whether resource limitation for oviposition affects pupal recovery, adult 

emergence and sex ratio in mango fruit fly, B. dorsalis. The results revealed that pupal recovery depended on 

duration of oviposition time and it increased with increased exposure to adult flies. However, by 48h, the per cent 

increase in pupae declined in 89.34% of 24h and drastically fell to 23.28% of 48h exposure after 72h. The 

percentage of adult emergence was highest (71.09) when fruits were exposed for 48h, followed by 24h (67.16%). 

The percentage of adult emergence was least (43.09) with 72h exposure. Exposure time did not affect the sex ratio. 

B. cucurbitae 94 Rajasthan Khandelwal 

watermelons 

and Nath 

B. correcta Mango Paria, 

Gujarat 


correcta 

1979 Field tests were carried out in Jobner, Rajasthan, India, in 1967-72 to evaluate the resistance of 94 cultivars of 

watermelon from India, USSR, USA and Japan to B. cucurbitae Coq. The cultivars J 18-1 (from Uttar Pradesh) and 

J 56-1 (from Rajasthan) were both found to be resistant to the fruit fly. 

Kumar et al. 1994 Four promising mango varieties namely, Alphonso, Rajapuri, Kesar and Dashehari were evaluated during 1990-93 

for their susceptibility to B. correcta in Paria, Gujarat. Fruit infestation, larval population in infested fruit and loss 

were considered for varietal screening. TSS, total sugars, acidity, pulp and peel of different varieties were correlated 

with fruit fly infestation. Cv. Alphonso suffered the most significant damage and recorded 26.7% fruit infestation, (2.7 

larvae/fruit). The weight loss was greatest (17.2 kg/tree) in cv.Kesar, but on a par with cv. Alphonso (16 kg/tree). In 

terms of monetary loss, cv. Alphonso ranked first (Rs 120/tree), followed by cv. Kesar. Cv. Dashehari suffered the 

least with respect to all the parameters studied. Total sugars showed significant positive correlation with fruit fly 

infestation (r = 0.8190), but the cumulative impact of all the chemical factors on fruit fly infestation was nonsignificant. 

Mango Kumar et al. 2002 Twenty mango hybrids evaluated for multiple pest resistance to tree fruit fly (B. dorsalis, B. correcta) revealed that 

10 hybrids (viz., Nedgoa, A.U. Rumani, Mehmood Bahar, Neleshan-Gujarat, Arka Punit, Sindhu, Manjira, Sangam, 

HY-165 and Neeluddin) showed multiple resistance to the test insects. GMH-1 (a promising hybrid from Gujarat) 

and Neleshan showed moderate to susceptible reaction to most of the insect pests. Neeleshwari was less 

susceptible to these insect pests. 


Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube Haryana Lakra and 

Singh 

1983 The oviposition behaviour of Carpomyia vesuviana Costa on ber (Ziziphus mauritiana), fruit deformity resulting from 

infestation and the incidence of the pest were studied in Haryana, India, between 1979 and 1981. Females 

preferred to oviposit in the distal or central part of the fruit. Oviposition inhibited growth in the surrounding tissues, 

causing protuberances and/or depressions in the fruit. Deformity was most apparent in young fruits with oviposition 

holes. Fruits smaller than 9 X 4.5 mm were avoided by females, while almost 50% of fruits measuring 20 X 9 mm 

contained oviposition holes during October. A maximum of 55.15% of fruits contained a single larva, while 37.16% 

contained 2 or 3. Only 0.08% of fruits contained 7 or 8 larvae. A total of 45% of fruits was infested by 2-8 larvae at 

some stage during of their development. Of the infested fruits, 21.83% were collected from the southern side of 

trees, while only 5.27% were taken from the northern side; the percentages taken from the eastern and western 

sides were almost equal (14.6 and 14.5, respectively). The pest was most abundant in December and least 

abundant in March. 

Bc? 29 cucurbits Lall and Sinha 1974 The percentage of infested fruit was assessed weekly over a four-week period for six bittergourd (Momordica 

charantia), six pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo), five sponge-gourd (Luffa cylindrica), five bottle-gourd (Lagenaria 

siceraria) and seven cucumber (Cucumis sativus) cultivars. The cultivars exhibiting most resistance for the five 

species respectively were Short Green Kareli, Small Sugar, Pilibhit Padmini, Sutton's Long White and Improved 

Long Green. 

B. dorsalis Mango Ludhiana, 

Punjab 

B. dorsalis Peach Punjab Mann and 

Bindra 

Meridarchis 

scyrodes, 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube Bijapur, 

Karnataka 

Mann 1996 B. dorsalis flies were observed throughout the year in methyl eugenol baited traps in a mango orchard in Ludhiana, 

Punjab, India. Population counts were low in the winter months from December to February which was thought to 

be caused by low temperature (below 20°C). Following the warmer season, the flies rebuilt their population 

throughout the rest of the year. However, low catches in July may be due to the after-effects of high temperatures in 

June (31.93°C) or due to high rainfall (223 mm/month). Afterwards, increases in fruit fly catches may be attributed to 

conducive temperature (24-29°C) and abundant supply of host fruits. The fruit fly counts on the mango fruits during 

July were greatest at 1100 h and 1200 h. Fruit fly infestation was 30.77, 65 and 85.50% in cultivars Dusheri, 

Sucking and Chausa, respectively. 

Nandihalli et 

al. 

1977 Field incidence of B. dorsalis Hendel on different cultivars of peach (Prunus persica) at Ludhiana (Punjab)studies 

over two years with eleven varieties, Florida Sun had the lowest average infestation; generally, infestation was 

related to earliness of fruiting, the earlier the variety the lower the infestation, except in the midearly variety Sun 

Red, in which infestation was heavy, possibly because the fruit lack hairs. 

1996 In a field study in 1995-96 at Bijapur, Karnataka, in Zizyphus mauritiana orchards, Meridarchis scyrodes and 

Carpomyia vesuviana were prevalent from first fortnight of December to first fortnight of February. The relationship 

between pest incidence and temperature was positive while negative relationship of the incidence of the pests was 

found with relative humidity, wind speed and cloud cover. M. scyrodes was more damaging than C. vesuviana in all 

the cultivars evaluated. Cv. Ilaichi and Chhuhara fruits recorded lowest pest infestation (1 larva/fruit). 


B. cucurbitae 82 cucurbits Nath et al. 1976 Eighty-two lines belonging to Cucurbita maxima and C. moschata were screened for resistance to B. cucurbitae. C. 

maxima 'IHR79-2' was found to have high resistance combined with a high yield in both wet and dry seasons. 

B. cucurbitae Arka Nath et al. 1976 Data from the F1, F2 and BC1 of Arka Suryamukhi (resistant to B. curcurbitae) X IHR (susceptible) and their 

reciprocal indicated that resistance is controlled by a single dominant gene designated Fr. 

Peach Nijjar 1991 TA-170 is a new cultivar of peach (Prunus persica), introduced from Florida and released in Punjab for general 

cultivation in December 1990. Fruits are medium large. Fruit flesh is firm and yellow with red colouration, semi-free 

and ripens 7 days earlier (76 days) than the standard Flordasun. Although there was no difference in yield and fruit 

weight, the trees of TA-170 were more vigorous. It is superior in respect of titratable soluble solids (TSS) and 

TSS/acid ratio, has better storage and shipping quality and is free from attack by fruit fly. 

B. cucubitae Musk melon Pal et al. 1983 Of 50 Cucumis melo accessions from India and elsewhere screened for resistance to B. cucurbitae in the field over 

4 years, 6 (all from India or Afghanistan) were characterized as resistant or immune (0-10% fruit damage). The 

resistant accessions were similar to the commercial variety Arka Jeet in many respects, but low in total soluble 

sugar contents. Data from a cross between Arka Jeet and the resistant wild species C. callosus indicated that 

resistance may be dominant. 

B. cucubitae Musk melon Rajasthan Pareek and 

Kavadia 

B. cucubitae 10 cucurbits Udaipur and Pareeka and 

Jobner, 

Rajasthan 

kavadia 

Dacus ciliatus Cucurbits Gujarat Patel and 

Patel 

Dacus ciliatus Cucurbits Gujarat Patel and 

Patel 

Dacus ciliatus Little gourd Gujarat Patel and 

Patel 

1995 In a field trial at 2 sites in Rajasthan, 17 musk melon cultivars were evaluated for their susceptibility to B. cucurbitae. 

The cultivars were either susceptible (51-75% fruits damaged) or highly susceptible (76-100%). 

1994 The relative preference of B. cucurbitae for 10 cucurbits grown in one field under semi-humid (Udaipur) and semiarid 

(Jobner) agro-climatic conditions studied. The studies indicated the highest preference for musk melon and 

round gourd followed by bitter gourd and long melon, whereas water melon was only moderately preferred. Ridge 

gourd, sponge gourd, cucumber, bottle gourd and pumpkin were the least preferred hosts. 

1998 The ovipositional preference of D. ciliatus on number of eggs laid in fruits found as (1) Little gourd > (2) Cucumber > 

(3) Bitter gourd > (4) Bottle gourd > (5) Smooth gourd > (6) Ridge gourd. 

1998 Little gourd appeared to be the most preferred host for the development of maggots showing highest growth index 

of all the hosts tested . 

1998 Laboratory observations showed that smaller sized fruits of little gourd [Coccinia grandis] were preferred over larger 

ones for oviposition 

B. spp. Pillai et al. 1983 Obtained from gamma-irradiated (75 kR) seed of selection H160, this variety gave better yields in trials than either 

its parent or the common variety Co1. It is tolerant to B. spp. 


B. zonata Guava Haryana Rana et al. 1990 Among 20 guava cultivars tested in the field in Haryana, Nasik and China Surkha were relatively least susceptible to 

B. zonata, having 20%. 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

B. dorsalis, 

Dichocrocis 

punctiferalis 

Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube Jodhpur, 

Rajasthan 

Sachan 1984 Damage to the fruits of 4 improved varieties of ber (Ziziphus jujuba [Z. mauritiana]), namely Seb, Jogia, Gola and 

Mundia-Marhera, by the tephritid Carpomyia vesuviana was assessed at harvest in the 1973-74 season at Jodhpur, 

Rajasthan, India, where the fruit fly is a serious pest. The results showed that 3.75, 7.68, 16.60 and 19.6% of the 

fruits of these varieties were damaged, respectively. Observations on 20 varieties that had received 3 applications 

of sprays containing 0.02% parathion in the 1st and 4th weeks of November and in the 3rd week of December (0.5 

to 7 ml insecticide/tree 5 years old) indicated 98-100% protection of fruits against damage by the fruit fly. 

Guava Punjab Sandhu et al. 1979 The incidence of B. dorsalis and Dichocrocis punctiferalis on the fruit was determined in 9 guava cvs. The former 

ranged from very low in the cvs Red Flesh and Seedless to very high in the cv. Apple and the latter from very low in 

the cvs Guinea and Red Flesh to very high in the cv. Seedless 

Jujube New Delhi Sharma et al. 1998 Thirty varieties of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) were screened for varietal resistance against Carpomyia vesuviana in 

1989-91 in New Delhi. Regular observations to record the fruit infestation were continued till harvesting. The 

cultivars were categorised into different grades of susceptibility, considering the per cent fruits damaged on the 

basis of number and weight. The categories were: totally immune, highly resistant 1-10%, resistant 11-20%, 

moderately resistant 21-30%, moderately susceptible 31-40%, susceptible 41-50%, and highly susceptible >50%. 

None of the cultivars was immune to the pest. However, cv. Tikdi and Illaichi were highly resistant in both the years. 

Cv. Umran, Tas Bataso, Deshi Alwar, Kishmis, were resistant or moderately resistant. The fruit of cultivars with high 

infestation and graded highly susceptible included Akhrota, Bagwadi, Gola, Katha Rajasthan, Dandan, Seo and 

Laddu. 

Jujube Singh 1984 Data are presented on the extent and severity of fruit infestation by Carpomyia vesuviana on 25 Zizyphus [Ziziphus] 

mauritiana cultivars, averaged over 3 years. The extent of infestation varied among cultivars (from 6.7% in Tikadi to 

73%), indicating that flies prefer certain cultivars for egg-laying. Eggs/fruit did not vary significantly, but the 

percentage of larvae hatched varied among cultivars, indicating varying degrees of antibiosis. There was a positive 

correlation between percentage fruit infestation and percentage hatching (r = 0.9038). 

Jujube Rajasthan Singh and 

Vashishtha 

1985 Field trials were carried out in Rajasthan, India, in 1979-82 to assess the resistance of some cultivars of ber 

(Ziziphus mauritiana) to attack by the tephritid Carpomyia vesuviana. The most susceptible varieties were Dandan 

Gola, Gola Gurgaon No. 3, Kaithli Hissar and Kakro Gola, while Ilaichi was moderately resistant and Tikadi was 

resistant 


B. cucurbitae Singh et al. 2000 The host preferences of the red pumpkin beetle, Aulacophora foveicollis, and the melon fruit fly, B. cucurbitae, were 

studied using different cucurbits during the summer.The percentage of fruit damage by the melon fruit fly was under 

50% in all cases. However, percentage damage was significantly highest on watermelon (28.55%) and bitter gourd 

(31.27%). 

B. cucurbitae Melon? Tewatia and 

Dhankhar 

1996 Inheritance of resistance to melon fruitfly was studied in 2 crosses of resistant Faizabad 17 X susceptible Pusa do 

Mausami and susceptible Arka Harit X resistant Kerala 1. Data on the percentage of infested fruits were recorded in 

parent lines, F1, F2, BC1 and BC2. Results indicated that resistance is dominant over susceptibility, and both 

additive and dominance gene effects were important in inheritance of resistance. However, a duplicate type of 

epistasis was noted. For further genetic improvement, reciprocal recurrent selection is suggested. 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Thakur et al. 1994 Stability analysis for economic traits and infestation of melon fruit-fly (B. cucurbitae) in bittergourd (Momordica 

charantia) were studied. 10 cultivars were sown out of which C96 was the most stable for fruits/plant and had the 

lowest incidence of fruit fly infestation. NDBT1 had the most stable resistance to B. cucurbitae. 

B. cucubitae Bitter gourd Ludhiana, 

Punjab 

Thakur et al. 1996 Information on yield correlations is derived from data on 7 characters (including fruit fly B. cucurbitae infection and 

total yield) in 10 Momordica charantia varieties (BG14, Arka Harit, Kalyanpur Sona, ARU41, NDBT1, Pusa Do 

Mausmi, Priya, Pusa Vishesh, Pusa Hybrid-1 and C96) grown at Ludhiana (Punjab). B. cucurbitae infection was 

negatively correlated with fruits/plant and total marketable yield. BG14 was the most promising variety with respect 

to yield components and B. cucurbitae resistance 


Section 10: Rearing, Culture and Diet 

Fly Host Location Author Date Summary 

B. cucurbitae Anand and Anand 1990 In experiments to determine the dietary effects of D-isomers of 10 essential amino acids on larvae of the 

tephritid B. cucurbitae, incorporating phenylalanine and tryptophan into a casein-based diet gave the best 

growth increase, followed by threonine, methionine and lysine. Arginine produced the maximum inhibition of 

growth and reduced survival. 

B. tau Bala 1987 The preoviposition period of the tephritid B. tau was determined on natural (fruit of Luffa spp.) and synthetic 

diets . Flies with a diet consisting of natural food, extra protein hydrolysate, vitamins, minerals and 

carbohydrates had the shortest preoviposition period (9 days ). Tephritids fed on protinex and glucose had the 

longest preoviposition period (25 days). 

B. cucurbitae Bhagat and Koul 1999 The seasonal biology of melon fruit fly, B. cucurbitae, was studied during pre-monsoon (April-June), 

monsoon (July-September) and post-monsoon (October-December). Field-collected adults of B. cucurbitae 

were housed in glass tubes with fresh slices of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), examined after 24h and 

their eggs collected. Eggs were placed on fresh bottle gourd slices kept on water-soaked filter papers and 

observed for hatching. Freshly hatched maggots were transferred on bottle gourd slices in glass tubes. At the 

onset of pupation, the slices were placed in tubes with water-soaked sand 50 mesh layer to facilitate 

pupation. Results revealed that incubation, larval and pupal periods were lowest during the pre-monsoon 

(1.00, 4.96 and 6.94 days, respectively) followed by monsoon and post-monsoon periods. Pre-oviposition 

and oviposition periods were lower in pre-monsoon (11.06 and 12.12 days, respectively) than in monsoon 

and post-monsoon periods. Adult emergence was highest in the pre-monsoon (80%), followed by monsoon 

(74.4%) and post-monsoon (62.7%) periods. 

B. cucurbitae Boush et al. 1977 Attempts were made to develop a chemically defined diet, for studying the nutritional requirements of this 

pest. Hydrolysed yeast was successfully replaced by a mixture of sucrose, 9 essential amino acids (arginine, 

histidine, isoleucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, threonine and valine), McCollum's salt 

mixture, and 10 vitamins of the B complex. 

B. cucurbitae Muskmelon, 

snake gourd, 

ribbed gourd 

Chelliah 1970 The fruits of three cucurbits plants were investigated for their suitability as media for the mass culture of B. 

cucurbitae Coq. in the laboratory. Muskmelon (Cucumis melo) proved the most suitable, snake gourd 

(Trichosanthes anguina) the least so and ribbed gourd (Luffa acutangula) intermediate. 


B. cucurbitae Gowda et al. 1979 An improved method developed in India for mass rearing of B. cucurbitae Coq. based on Protinex (protein 

hydrolysate with vitamins) and 20% honey solution instead of the previously used yeast hydrolysate and 

sugar crystals. The method was used for rearing D. cucurbitae for 5-6 generations, and pupal recoveries 

were in the range of 90-95%. The period between the egg stage and adult emergence was 11-16 days at 28 

plus or minus 2 deg C and 75% RH. 

B. cucurbitae Gupta and Anand 1994 When different doses of boric acid, molybdic acid and cobalt chloride were tested for their effects on growth 

and development of larvae, there was a significant adverse effect on growth. 

B. cucurbitae Gupta and Anand 1994 Salt mixture 185 used in the larval diet does not have any trace elements. When FeCl3 was added in addition 

to salt mixture 185 in the diet, there was a significant improvement in the growth of the larvae but when the 

same concn of FeCl3 was added to a diet with HMW salt mixture there was no significant improvement in 

growth index. 

B. cucurbitae Gupta and Anand 2002 The salt compositions of Wesson's salt mixture, i.e. calcium carbonate (21.00%), tricalcium phosphate 

(14.90%), copper sulfate (0.039%), ferric phosphate (1.47%), manganese sulfate (0.02%), magnesium 

sulfate (9.00%), potash (0.009%), potassium dihydrogen phosphate (31.00%), potassium chloride (12.00%), 

potassium iodide (0.005%), sodium chloride (10.5%) and sodium fluoride (0.057%), in a casein-based 

artificial diet were removed individually. One treatment had all the salts and the treatment with no salts was 

taken as the control. Single omissions of ferric sulfate and manganese sulfate improved the diet over the 

treatment with complete salts. The absence of these 2 salts not only improved the oviposition and fertility but 

also the longevity of B. cucurbitae. The absence of copper sulfate also affected the fecundity but its effect 

was more pronounced on longevity and egg viability. The absence of calcium salts had no effect on longevity 

and oviposition period but did not favour peak attainment and viability. Removal of magnesium, potassium 

and sodium salts individually delayed the sexual maturity of the flies and reduced significantly the oviposition 

period, longevity, fecundity and fertility. 

Bactocera 

cucurbitae 

Gupta and Anand 2003 Different constituent salts of Wesson's salt mixture having the same anion were detected one by one in a 

casein artificial diet and their effect on various parameters of reproductive potential of Bactrocera cucurbitae 

was observed. Six anions - carbonate, phosphate, chloride, iodide, sulfate and fluoride - were removed from 

the diets one at a time. In the absence of fluoride anion, the flies improved their oviposition, longevity as well 

as fertility, but the improvement was less when carbonate, phosphate, chloride and sulfate anions were 

removed. The absence of iodide produced a positive effect on all the parameters. 


B. cucurbitae Gupta and Verma 1995 The tephritid B. cucurbitae, when reared on 3 cucurbit food plants, namely bitter gourd (Momordica 

charantia), cucumber and sponge gourd (Luffa sp.), showed slight variations in the duration of the egg (1.1- 

1.8 days) and pupal (7.7-9.4 days) stages, but it varied notably in the larval stage, being 6 days on Luffa sp. 

and 3 days on the 2 other hosts. The highest mortality occurred during the egg stage (maximum 20%) on 

Luffa sp. The shortest mean generation time (25.8 days), highest net reproductive rate (Ro = 55.8) and 

highest intrinsic rate of increase (0.16) were on cucumber. 

B. cucurbitae Gupta et al. 1994 The effect of addition of 3 trace metal salts at various concn were tested on larvae. No significant effects 

were observed when MnCl2 was added, but when ZnSo4 and Cuso4 were added individually to the diets 

there was a significant adverse effect on larval growth. 

B. cucurbitae Kaur and 

Srivastava 


Srivastava 


Srivastava 


Srivastava 


Srivastava 

1991 The effect of the B vitamins, folic acid and boitin, individually and together on reproduction by was studied y 

at 27°C and 75% RH. The omission of all B vitamins resulted in a reduction of the oviposition period, 

longevity, total oviposition and egg viability. These parameters were also reduced when only one B vitamin 

was omitted. 

1994 The effect of amino acids on reproduction was studied at 27°C and 75% RH. The 10 essential amino acids 

were indispensable together and individually, and without them the flies failed to attain sexual maturity.The 

omission of the non-essential amino acids as a group resulted in reduced longevity, total oviposition and egg 

viability. 

1994 The effect of alpha-tocopherol at 0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.00 mg in the diet on the reproductive potential of 

adults was studied. In the absence of alpha-tocopherol, the cyclic rhythm of oviposition was impaired. The 

oviposition period, total oviposition, egg viability and longevity were also adversely affected and were 

reduced by 46.60 days, 3356 eggs/20 females, 55.57% and 41.70 days, resp. Optimum total oviposition, egg 

viability and longevity were observed with 5 mg of alpha-tocopherol in the diet. 

1995 The effect of ascorbic acid in various quantities (0.5, 1.00 (control), 1.50 and 2.00mg/ml) in the diet on the 

various parameters of reproductive potential were studied in adults and found that a dietary concn of 

1.00mg/ml diet was optimal. Lower quantities of ascorbic acid (0.50mg/ml of diet) proved to be detrimental 

and could not support normal life and reproduction, whereas higher quantities (1.50 and 2.00mg/ml of diet), 

although not very harmful, were either ineffective or slightly detrimental. 

1995 The effect of the presence or absence of cholesterol in the diet on various parameters of reproductive 

potential was studied. The absence of cholesterol shortened the peak oviposition period, which also occurred 

earlier than in the diet with cholesterol; it also resulted in a reduced oviposition period, and a lower 

oviposition rate and egg viability. It is concluded from the results that cholesterol promotes oogenesis and is 

therefore an essential component of the diet of B. cucurbitae. 



Srivastava 


Srivastava 


Srivastava 


Srivastava 


Srivastava 

1995 The effect of different amounts of sucrose (0, 250, 500, 750, 1000 (control), 1250, 1500, 1750 and 2000 

mg/ml diet) on various parameters of the reproductive potential was studied. In absence of sucrose the flies 

died within 3 days and for adults of B. cucurbitae the optimal dietary level of sucrose is 66.67 per (dry wt.) for 

optimum longevity, total oviposition and egg viability. 

1995 The effects of dietary water, sucrose and yeast hydrolysate on oviposition and longevity were studied by 

eliminating each component one at a time. Water was essential for the survival of adults, which died if kept 

without water for more than 24h. Without sucrose, adults died within 3 days. When adults were kept on a diet 

without protein, females failed to oviposit, although adults lived longer (113 days) than those fed on a diet 

containing all components (101.6) days. 

1995 The effects of minerals on the reproductive potential of B. cucurbitae was studied. In the absence of minerals 

from the diet, oviposition period, longevity, egg deposition, number of oviposition peaks and egg viability 

were drastically reduced (by 34.00 days, 24.70 days, 2987.70 eggs (two-thirds), 4.33 peaks and 21.13%, 

resp.), leading to a considerable reduction in the reproductive potential of the pest. Thus, minerals are 

extremely important for normal reproduction of B. cucurbitae 

1995 Three different artificial diets, yeast hydrolysate based, casein based and amino acid based, were evaluated 

for their effects on various parameters of the reproductive potential . When all the parameters were assessed 

together, the yeast hydrolysate based diet containing bulk nutrient was found to be most suitable as it 

supported maximum reproductive potential. It was followed by the casein based and amino acid based diets. 

1996 In two artificial oviposition receptacles (a paraffin dome and a plastic, lemon-shaped receptacle) for B. 

cucurbitae tested for comparison with pumpkin fruits, average oviposition per 20 females per day was 2.80 

and 17.20, respectively, compared with 150.20 in pumpkin fruits. 

B. cucurbitae Lall and Singh 1969 In laboratory rearing, adults were kept in breeding cages with slices of cucumber; slices containing eggs 

were removed to glass troughs containing a layer of sand and more cucumber, in which the larval stage was 

passed; the pupae were transferred to petri dishes of moist sand to prevent desiccation, and the ensuing 

adults were returned to the breeding cages. Under these conditions 9-10 generations were reared, each 

lasting 12.56-33.61 days according to the time of year. 

B. dorsalis Pant et al. 1990 The effect of the pH of artificial diet on the growth and development of B. dorsalis was studied under aseptic 

conditions. The optimum pH was 5, with 87.5% of larvae developing to the pupal stage and a growth index of 

3.88. Growth and development were adversely affected when the pH was below 4.5 or above 5.5. 


B. cucurbitae Paripurna and 

Srivastava 

B. cucurbitae Paripurna and 

Srivastava 

1987 Experiments were carried out to determine the optimum quantity of water in an artificial diet for B. cucurbitae. 

The quantities of distilled water tested were 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 75 and 100 ml. The diet containing 50 ml of 

water provided the maximum growth and development of larvae of B. curcurbitae. 

1990 The optimum amounts of sucrose and glucose for larval growth and development of B. cucurbitae on an 

artificial diet were found to be 2000 and 500 mg, resp., per 50 ml diet. 

B. cucurbitae Srivastava et al. 1977 Qualitative studies were carried out on the requirement of larvae of B. cucurbitae Coq. for vitamins of the B 

complex. Only thiamin, riboflavin, nicotinic acid, pantothenic acid, pyridoxin and choline chloride were found 

to be essential for growth and development. 

B. cucurbitae Srivastava et al. 1978 Laboratory experiments were carried out to determine the effect of ascorbic acid on larvae of B. cucurbitae 

Coq. reared on an artificial diet. Added to the diet at a rate of 0.2 mg/ml, it was found to be suitable for 

normal growth and development of the larvae. The vitamin was effective only if it was added after the rest of 

the diet was autoclaved. When added before autoclaving, the ascorbic acid probably lost its effectiveness 

because of its thermolabile nature. 

B. cucurbitae Srivastava et al. 1980 An artificial diet developed for rearing larvae of B. cucurbitae Coq. the diet contains 3.0g casein, 1.0g 

sucrose AR, 0.040g cholesterol, 0.100g McCollum's salt mixture No.185, 0.100g ribonucleic acid, 0.025g 

methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate, 1000 mu g thiamin, 1000 mu g riboflavin, 1000 mu g nicotinic acid, 1000 mu g 

pantothenic acid, 1000 mu g pyridoxine, 0.100g chloramphenicol, 0.4ml potassium hydroxide 10%, 1.0g 

agar, 50.0ml distilled water, 1000 mu g 4-aminobenzoic acid, 1000 mu g inositol, 20 000 mu g choline 

chloride, 100 mu g biotin and 250 mu g folic acid. The pH of the diet was found to be a crucial factor, and at 

pHs above or below 5.4 the larvae failed to grow. 

B. cucurbitae Srivastava et al. 1980 The addition of yeast, its 2 fractions (water soluble and insoluble) and yeast ash to the artificial diet of B. 

cucurbitae Coq. was studied in relation to its effects on the growth and development of the pest. The larvae 

could only develop if yeast was included in the diet, and this was found to be due to the change in pH from 

4.4 to 5.4 caused by the yeast. Raising the pH to 5.4 by the addition of 10% KOH to the diet enabled the 

yeast to be eliminated, and it was established that a pH of between 5.4 and 7 was most suitable for the 

growth of B.c. larvae in aseptic conditions. 

B. cucurbitae Srivastava et al. 1983 The effects of the antimicrobial compounds methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate at 0.04%, sorbic acid at 0.04% and 

propionic acid [propanoic acid] at 0.2% in the artificial diet on the growth and development of B. cucurbitae 

were studied. The addition of sorbic acid and propanoic acid to the diet was lethal to the larvae, while in the 

presence of methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate 50% of the larvae pupated within about 10 days. The optimum 

concentration range of the compound for protection against fungal infection without adversely affecting larval 

survival was shown to be 0.4-0.8 mg/ml diet, and the minimum effective dosage 0.4 mg/ml diet. 


B. dorsalis Srivastava et al. 1989 The composition of an aseptic diet to rear larvae of the tephritid B. dorsalis was developed. The diet (in g) 

consists of vitamin-free casein (3.5), sucrose 2.0), cholesterol (0.04), Mc-collum salt mixture No. 185 (0.1), 

ribonucleic acid (0.1), methyl parahydroxy benzoate (0.1), chloramphenicol (0.1), 10% potassium hydroxide 

(0.4) ml, agar (1.0), distilled water (10 ml) and (in mg) the vitamins thiamine 1, riboflavin 1, nicotinic acid, 

pantothenic acid (1), p-aminobenzoic acid (1), inositol (10), choline chloride (2), biotin (0.1), folic acid (0.25 

and PII (5.4). 

B. cucurbitae Srivastava et al. 1995 A casein hydrolysate-based diet was shown to be as effective as one containing imported yeast hydrolysate 

for use in rearing. 


Section 11: Physiology and Biochemistry 

Fly Authors Date Location Summary 

B. cucurbitae Kaur and 1995 The effect of minerals on the reproductive potential of Bactrocera cucurbitae was studied. In the absence of minerals from the 

Srivastava 

diet, oviposition period, longevity, egg deposition, number of oviposition peaks and egg viability were drastically reduced (by 

34.00 days, 24.70 days, 2987.70 eggs (two-thirds), 4.33 peaks and 21.13%, resp.), leading to a considerable reduction in the 

reproductive potential of the pest. Thus, minerals are extremely important for normal reproduction of B. cucurbitae. 

B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1980 The effects of various doses of gamma-irradiation on the haemolymph protein content of adults of B. dorsalis Hend. were 

studied in Laboratory. It was found that irradiation with doses up to 15 kR did not appreciably change the haemolymph protein 

content; but irradiation with 24 kR resulted in an increase in protein content from 3.116 to 3.661 g/100 ml haemolymph in males 

and from 2.826 to 3.995 g/100 ml haemolymph in females 4 days after treatment, and the content increased further to 3.773 g 

in males and 4.215 g in females when analysed 10 days after treatment. This increase in the concentration of haemolym ph 

protein indicated that there was no degradation of the protein in adults of D. dorsalis treated with high doses of radiation. 

B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1980 The effects of various doses of gamma-irradiation on peroxidase activity in adults of B. dorsalis Hend. were studied in the 

laboratory in India. It was found that there was little difference in enzyme activity between untreated insects and those 

irradiated with 10 kR. However, a slight reduction was observed 30 days after treatment with 15 kR in the fore-gut region and 

20 days after treatment in the mid-gut region. A significant reduction in peroxidase activity was observed after treatment with 20 

kR in all regions of the gut in both sexes of D. dorsalis. 

B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1980 A laboratory study was carried out to determine the effect of gamma -irradiation on lipase activity in adults of B. dorsalis Hend. 

The insects were treated with 10, 15 and 20 kR and it was found that the lowest dose had no significant effect on the activity of 

the enzyme, whereas the 2 higher doses resulted in considerable reductions in activity in all regions of the gut, the maximum 

reduction being observed 10 days after treatment. The pattern of lipase activity was almost identical in males and females, 

except that in females the enzyme was initially slightly more active than in males in all the gut regions. 

B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1980 Studies carried out in the laboratory on the effect of gamma-radiation doses between 1 and 20 kR on third-instar larvae and 

mature pupae of B. dorsalis Hend. revealed that the treatment had a pronounced effect on the development of these stages, 

the effect being dose-dependent. Irradiation of larvae and pupae with the highest dose (20 kR) of gamma -radiation resulted in 

31.50 and 64% adult emergence, respectively. 


B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1981 The activity of some important digestive enzymes in the various parts of the alimentary canal was studied in normal adults of B. 

dorsalis Hend. as well as in adults treated with gamma -radiation at 10, 15 and 20 krad in the laboratory. There was no 

significant difference in the activity of amylase, invertase, lactase, maltase and trypsin in the fore-gut and hind-gut or between 

normal insects and those treated at 10 krad, except in the case of lactase that declined sharply in the fore-gut of irradiated flies. 

Enzyme activity in all parts of the gut was considerably reduced by radiation doses of 15 or 20 krad, the greatest reduction 

occurring 10 days after treatment at 20 krad. 

B. dorsalis Prasad and Sethi 1983 The effects of gamma-irradiation on the important amino acids of B. dorsalis was studied in the laboratory in India by taking 

whole body extracts of the pest in various developmental stages and analysing them chromatographically. Tissue extracts of 

untreated larvae, pupae and adults showed the presence of almost all the essential amino acids; the acids identified were 

alanine, arginine, aspartic acid, cystine, glutamic acid, glycine, methionine, phenylalanine, proline and valine. At dosages of 15 

and 20 kR, the intensity of amino acids in all stages was reduced, and phenylalanine and proline were not detected in insects 

treated with these dosages. In addition, treatment with 20 kR reduced the amino acid content and resulted in the loss of 

aspartic acid and valine in all the developmental stages as well as cystine in adults 10 days after irradiation. 

B. dorsalis Prasad et al. 1980 The structure of the mid-gut of normal adults of B. dorsalis Hend. and the histological damage associated with radiation 

exposure were investigated in the laboratory. The results indicated that the epithelial lining of the mid-gut was highly sensitive 

to gamma -radiation. The regenerative cells and mid-gut epithelium were damaged at 15 kR, while at 20 kR the effect was 

much greater, the entire mid-gut epithelium being destroyed. No radiation damage was observed after treatment at 10 kR. 

B. dorsalis Sethi et al. 1981 Third-instar larvae of B. dorsalis Hend. were allowed to feed in the laboratory for 24 h on mango and guava fruits to which 

radioactive phosphorus or radioactive sulfur had been applied. They were then thoroughly washed to remove surface 

contamination and were assayed for radioactivity. The initial level of radioactivity (counts/100 s) in newly emerged adults to 

which the larvae fed on 32P gave rise was 1822-57 980 for males and 7364-19 782 for females. The corresponding counts for 

adults from the 35S treatment were 2320-4760 for males and 986-2920 for females. It was calculated that the half-life of the 

32P labelling was 44.77 days for females and 66.07 for males, and for 35S it was 10.87 days for females and 14.12 days for 

males. 

B. cucurbitae Shukla and 

Srivastava 


Srivastava 

1980 The distribution and kinetics of acetylcholinesterase in B. cucurbitae Coq. Acetylcholinesterase activity was found to be highest 

in the head (140 plus or minus 2.0nM ATCh mg protein-1 min-1), followed by the thorax (40 plus or minus 1.52 nM ATCh mg 

protein-1 min-1), and was lowest in the abdomen (12 +/- 0.32nM ATCh mg protein-1 min-1). The protein content was highest in 

the abdomen, lower in the thorax and lowest in the head. 

1980 The activity of acetylcholinesterase preparations from heads of B. cucurbitae Coq. was inhibited by 5 organophosphorus and 

carbamate insecticides (malathion, chlorfenvinphos, dicrotophos, carbaryl and eserine). All of the compounds except malathion 

were strong inhibitors of the enzyme. 


B. cucurbitae Srivastava et al. 1977 Qualitative studies were carried out on the requirement of larvae of B. cucurbitae Coq. for vitamins of the B complex. Only 

thiamin, riboflavin, nicotinic acid, pantothenic acid, pyridoxin and choline chloride were found to be essential for growth and 

development. 


cucurbitae 

Thomas and 

Rahalkar 

1975 Experiments were carried out determine whether irradiation at the low dose (25 krad) used to delay ripening in mango fruits 

could prevent adult emergence in two mango pests, B. dorsalis Hend. and D. cucurbitae Coq., and also to determine the 

susceptibility of these fruit-flies to radiation at different stages of their life-cycle. Eggs, larvae 3-4 days old and pupae 2-3 days 

old were exposed to 15, 25, 40 or 100 krad gamma -radiation from a 60Co source and afterwards the eggs and larvae were 

transferred to pieces of mango or pumpkin and the pupae to moist sand. All stages of both species exposed to the 2 higher 

doses ceased development, except for 30-50% of the larvae treated at 40 krad, which pupated but did not give rise to adults. 

Exposure of eggs to 15 or 25 krad permitted 40-50 and 25-30% hatch, respectively, as compared with 70-80% for no treatment, 

but the ensuing larvae had reduced mobility, delayed growth and not more than 50% pupation rate, and there was no survival 

to the adult stage. Exposed larvae were likewise slow in growth and movement, and although 60-70 and 50% pupated, 

respectively, no adults emerged. No adults emerged from pupae irradiated at any dose. 


Section 12: Natural Enemies 

Host Enemy Nature Location Author Date Summary 

D. ciliatus O. 

longicaudatus 

B. zonata, 

Chetostoma 

completum 

Opius sp., 

Torymoides 

kiesenwetteri 

Parasitoid Coimbatore, 

South India 

Vadivelu et 

al. 

Parasitoid North India Agarwal and 

Kapoor 

Parasitoid Northern 

India 

B. dorsalis Opius incisi Parasitoid Burrdwan, 

West Bengal 

A. helianthi Menochilus 

sexmaculatus 


zonata 

Natural 

enemies 

Predator Madhya 

Pradesh 

Agarwal and 

Kapoor 

1976 Parasite on some South Indian crop pests out of which Biosteres longicaudatus Ashm. (Opius 

longicaudatus) on Dacus ciliatus Lw. (brevistylus Bez.) has been newly recorded. 

1989 The torymid Dimeromicrus kiesenwetteri [Torymoides kiesenwetteri] was found parasitizing pupae of 

the tephritid Chetostoma completum, a pest of Centaurea cyanus in India. A species of the braconid 

genus Opius was found parasitizing pupae of the tephritid Bactrocera zonata. 

1989 A species of the braconid genus Opius was found parasitizing pupae of the tephritid Bactrocera 

zonata. 

Banerjee 1990 During light-trapping the braconid parasitoid Opius incisi, a parasitoid of Bactrocera dorsalis, showed 

well defined nocturnal activity. Larger numbers of the parasitoid were present in March and August, 

which was probably due to host distribution and favourable weather conditions prevailing in these 2 

months. 

Cavalloro et 

al. 

Chaudhary 

et al. 

Predator Jalaluddin et 

al. 

4 spp Kumar and 

Monga 

1983 Over 30 species of hymenopterous parasites of tephritids are reported mainly from India. The hosts 

include the beneficial tephritids Ensina sonchi (L.), which destroys the weeds Cirsium arvense and 

Sonchus arvensis and was parasitised by a species of Pteromalus, and Procecidochares utilis Stone 

(a promising biological control agent against crofton weed (Eupatorium adenophorum), which was 

parasitised by Dimeromicrus vibidia (Wlk.) in Nepal. The other hosts are in the genera Dacus, 

Carpomyia, Acanthiophilus and Chetostoma, and include some well-known pests. 

1983 Discovered a coccinellid, Menochilus sexmaculatus feeding on the larvae of the capsule fruit flies, A. 

helianthi . 

1998 In India during 1994-95, the carabid Pheropsophus sobrinus desbordesi [P. hilaris sobrinus] was 

observed preying on larvae and pupae of B. correcta that fell to the ground. The carabid population 

peaked in July and August. 

1996 In a laboratory study, Zygoballus indica, Lyssomanes sikkimensis, Myrmarachne bengalensis and 

Lycosa mackenziei showed high preference for Idioscopus sp. and Drosicha mangifera, and 

moderate preference for Bactrocera dorsalis and B. zonata. 


D. latifrons Opius sp., O. 

incisi, Biosteres 

sp 

Parasitoid Karnataka Udayagiri 1987 In Karnataka B. latifrons was reared in the laboratory from berries of Solanum viarum collected in the 

field. Three braconid parasitoids were recovered from the pupae: these were subsequently identified 

as Opius sp., O. incisi and Biosteres sp. This was the first record of O. incisi and Biosteres sp. 

parasitizing D. latifrons. 


Section 13: Cultural Controls 


B. zonata Butani et al. 1976 B. zonata (Saund.), a polyphagous pest that is controlled by destroying all damaged and fallen fruits and by ploughing round 

the trees in January and February to kill the pupae. 

Mango Maharastra Godse and 

Bhole 

B. dorsalis Guava Makhmoor 

and Singh 

B. cucurbitae Pandey and 

Mishra 

2002 Studies on natural incidence of fruit flies on Alphonso mango indicated (at Maharastra) that the fruits harvested before June 

were free from fruitfly infestation also showed that regular collection and destruction of fallen, ripe or decaying fruits can 

reduce fruit fly population in orchards as fruitflies preffred the ripening fruits for egg laying. 

1999 The effects of soil type, hoeing frequency, depth of pupation and irrigation frequency on pupal mortality and adult emergence 

of guava fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, were determined in field studies in guava orchards in India. Maximum (93.3%) pupal 

mortality was recorded at the surface and minimum (13.3%) at a depth of 10cm which was significantly less than all other 

treatments. Increased pupal mortality was observed with an increase in the frequency of irrigation and ranged from 20.0 to 

96.6%. 

1999 Vertical and horizontal movement of Bactrocera cucurbitae larvae for pupation was studied, and it was observed that larvae 

had a thrust movement for a maximum distance of 30cm, while the vertical movement was up to 15cm in depth. The larvae 

usually preferred the texture of medium soil to medium sand for pupation. It appeared that the available soil conditions 

governed the movement of larvae for pupation. 

Gujarat Patel 1994 Infested fruit must be buried to a depth of at least 15 cm to prevent adult emergence. 

C. vesuviana Sangwan 

and Lakra 

C. vesuviana Jujube Uttar 

Pradesh 

1992 In the laboratory, the optimum temperature for pupal development in the tephritid Carpomyia vesuviana was 30°C, leading to 

high adult emergence (74%) and short pupal duration (average 15.65 days). At 10, 16 and 40°C, no adult emergence 

occurred in 50 days. The ideal depth for pupation was 3-6 cm below the soil surface, at which adult emergence was 82%. 

Only 15% adult emergence took place at a depth of 45 cm. 

Singh et al. 2000 A field experiment was conducted in Uttar Pradesh in 1997 to evaluate the efficacy of the following control schedules on ber 

fruit fly (Carpomya vesuviana) infestation and yield of Ziziphus mauritiana: deep raking soil (T1); radial application of phorate 

as Thimet 10G (118 g/tree) (T2); cypermethrin, endosulfan [application rates not given] (T3); phosphamidon (0.05%), 

chlorpyrifos (0.04%) (T4); monocrotophos (0.05%), malathion (0.05%) (T5); dimethoate, econeem [application rates not given] 

(T6); methyl-O-demeton [demeton-O-methyl] (0.03%), sukrina (1.0%) (T7); and an untreated control (T8). All treatments 

reduced ber fruit fly infestation compared to the untreated trees. The T5 schedule resulted in the lowest percentage of fruit 

infestation at 15 days after the 1st, 2nd and 3rd sprayings (9.30%, 7.30% and 4.60%, respectively) and the highest mean 

yield of 10.43 kg/picking (compared to 6.58 kg/picking in T8), followed by T4 with 6.3% fruit infestation at 15 days after the 3rd 

spray and a mean yield of 10.26 kg/picking. 


Section 14: Insecticides - Active Ingredient Lethality and Effects of Cover Sprays 



cucurbitae, D. 

ciliatus 

Peach Himachal 

Pradesh 

Sharma et al. 1973 Two spray treatments 4 and 2 weeks before fruit harvest. Fenthion and Fenitrothion each at 2.5 ml a.i./ tree. 

Percentage infestation was reduced to 3.45 and 8.11 respectively, compared to 41.65 in the untreated control. 

B. cucurbitae Cucurbits Bihar Agarwal et al. 1987 Fenthion, dichlorvos, phosphamidon and endosulfan recommended. 

B. dorsalis Mango 

(alphanso) 

Maharastra Anand and 

Rama 

Chandani 

1984 Fumigation with ethylene dibromide at dosages of 20, 28 and 36 g/m3 gave 100% mortality after an exposure 

period of 2h. On the basis of results lowest dosage (20g/m3) of ethylene dibromide is recommended. 

B. cucurbitae Watermelon Babu et al. 2002 A field experiment was carried out from January to March 1999, to evaluate the bioefficacy of test insecticides: 

neem (3 and 5 ml/litre), triazophos (700 g a.i./ha), chlorpyriphos [chlorpyrifos] (400 g a.i./ha), monocrotophos 

(700 g a.i./ha), abamectin (15 and 20 g a.i./ha), SIL-942 (60 and 100 g a.i./ha) and beta-cyfluthrin (12.5 and 18.75 

g a.i./ha) on insect pests of watermelon. Abamectin exerted superior control of aphids (Aphis gossypii; 96.19%), 

thrips (Thrips tabaci; 81.14%) and also desirable suppression of leaf miner (Liriomyza trifolii; 30.95%). Betacyfluthrin 

was effective against red pumpkin beetle (A. foveicollis; 6.86% damaged leaves per plant). 

Monocrotophos offered good control of aphids (94.92%) and thrips (63.94%). Triazophos reduced aphid 

population to an extent of 94.56%. Chlorpyriphos achieved good control of thrips (72.54%). Neem recorded 27.18 

and 70.55% reduction of leaf miner and fruitfly (B. cucurbitae), respectively. 

Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube Gujarat Bagle 1992 The incidence of Carpomyia vesuviana on Ziziphus mauritiana was studied in Gujarat, and attempts were made 

to determine suitable control measures. Pest attack started around mid-October and increased suddenly in mid- 

November (average incidence over 20%), continuing until December. Of several insecticides tested, fenvalerate 

at 0.005% and decamethrin [deltamethrin] at 0.0015% were the most effective and consistent in reducing 

infestation, followed by monocrotophos and phosphamidon at 0.05%. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Punjab Bal 1992 Spray 500ml of rogor 30EC (Dimethoate) in 300 litres of water during Feb-March. Stop spraying at least 15 days 

before fruit picking. 

C. vesuviana Jujube South India Basha 1952 Four triweekly sprays of 0.05 per cent BHC and 0.1 per cent DDT. (Both BHC and DDT are now banned in India). 


B. cucurbitae Bhagat and 

Koul 

B. cucurbitae Bottle and Rajasthan Bhatnagar and 

sponge gourd, 

ridge gourd 

Yadav 

B. cucurbitae Cucurbits Himachal 

Pradesh 

B. dorsalis Guava Ludhiana, 

Punjab 

Bhatt and 

Bhalla 

Bindra and 

Mann 

B. dorsalis Guava Bindra and 

Mann 

1999 The seasonal biology of melon fruit fly, B. cucurbitae, was studied during pre-monsoon (April-June), monsoon 

(July-September) and post-monsoon (October-December). Field-collected adults of B. cucurbitae were housed in 

glass tubes with fresh slices of bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), examined after 24h and their eggs collected. 

Eggs were placed on fresh bottle gourd slices kept on water-soaked filter papers and observed for hatching. 

Freshly hatched maggots were transferred on bottle gourd slices in glass tubes. At the onset of pupation, the 

slices were placed in tubes with water-soaked sand 50 mesh layer to facilitate pupation. Results revealed that 

incubation, larval and pupal periods were lowest during the pre-monsoon (1.00, 4.96 and 6.94 days, respectively) 

followed by monsoon and post-monsoon periods. Pre-oviposition and oviposition periods were lower in premonsoon 

(11.06 and 12.12 days, respectively) than in monsoon and post-monsoon periods. Adult emergence 

was highest in the pre-monsoon (80%), followed by monsoon (74.4%) and post-monsoon (62.7%) periods. 

1992 In field studies conducted in Rajasthan, malathion 50 EC (0.5%) was the most effective insecticide at reducing 

numbers of B. cucurbitae infesting bottle and sponge gourd [Lagenaria siceraria] and ridge gourd [Luffa 

acutangula], followed by carbaryl 50 WP (0.2%) and quinalphos 25 EC (0.2%). 

1978 The toxicity of films of spray residues of 7 insecticides to adults of the cucurbit pest B. cucurbitae Coq. at 0, 24, 

48, 72 and 168 h after application was determined in laboratory tests. Mortality 24 h after exposure showed that 

fenthion was consistently more toxic than the other compounds. Initial toxicity showed that, after fenthion, 

malathion was the most effective, followed by tetrachlorvinphos, trichlorphon and endosulfan. Carbaryl and DDT 

(banned in India) were almost ineffective. 

1971 High volume spray contains 0.2% Acephate, 0.1% Malathion and 0.1 and 0.25 % Fenthion applied at weekly 

interval. Dipping the fruit into a 0.06% dimethoate emulsion. 

1979 Laboratory and field experiments were carried out to test the effectiveness of several insecticides as dips, foliar 

sprays and soil sprays against the guava pest B. dorsalis Hend. Dipping the fruits into a 0.06% dimethoate 

emulsion was effective against larvae inside fruit, but spraying guava trees with 2% of the same was ineffective. 

High-volume weekly sprays of 0.2% acephate, 0.1% malathion and 0.1 and 0.2% fenthion were promising, 

assessed by percentages of fruits with oviposition holes and numbers of oviposition holes. Spray applications of 

aldrin and HCH (BHC) to the soil were promising in reducing the emergence of adult B dorsalis. 

B. cucurbitae Pumpkin Assam Borah 1993 Carbofuran at 1.5 Kg a.i./ha applied 15 days after germination. 

B. cucurbitae Cucumber Assam Borah 1997 Spray of deltamethrin, cypermethrin and fenvalerate gave acceptable level of control. 


B. cucurbitae Pumpkin Assam Borah 1998 Various insecticidal schedules were tested against B. cucurbitae on pumpkin. The most effective in terms of 

lowest pest incidence and highest yield was carbofuran at 1.5kg a.i./Ha applied 15 days after germination. 

A. helianthi Safflower Madhya 

Pradesh 

B. cucurbitae Momordica 

charantia 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 


cucurbitae 


cucurbitae 

Vellayani, 

Kerala 

Chaudhary et 

al. 

1983 0.03 per cent Quinalphos (best), dimethoate, formothion, demeton-s-methyl (Metasystox) and Phosphamidon. 

0.04 per cent monocrotophos & phosalone and 0.075 per cent endosulfan gave good result. 

Das et al. 1968 0.1% Carbaryl and trichlorophos (Dipterex) and 0.05% malathion, four times as cover sprays beginning at 

flowering times. 

Jujube Haryana Dashad et al. 1999 In a field experiment in 1993-97 in Haryana with Ziziphus mauritiana, Carpomyia vesuviana was most effectively 

controlled by applying monocrotophos 0.03%, fenthion 0.05% and carbaryl XLR 0.01% consecutively at an 

interval of 15 days. This treatment resulted in the lowest fruit infestation level (2.92%) compared to 46.83% in the 

untreated control. Application of these insecticides resulted in 90.31-95.03% reduction in fruitfly infestation. 

Mango, 

guava, 

sapota, 

pumpkin, 

squash, bitter 

gourd 

Doharey 1985 The effectiveness of 5 insecticides applied in baits against B. dorsalis and B. cucurbitae was studied in the 

laboratory. Fenitrothion was the most effective compound, resulting in 100% mortality of both species 24h after 

treatment with the lowest concentration (0.03%). All 3 concentrations of decamethrin [deltamethrin] (0.003, 0.004 

and 0.005%) gave 100% mortality of B. dorsalis within 48h and of B. cucurbitae within 72h at 0.004 and 0.005% 

and 96 h at 0.003%. The lowest concentration of carbaryl (0.05%) gave 100% mortality of B. dorsalis within 72h 

and of D. cucurbitae within 48h. 

Doharey and 

Butani 

B. spp. Peach Gupta and 

Joshi 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Haryana Gupta and 

Verma 

1986 Two tephritids were studied in the laboratory at 27°C. The toxicity of 0.03, 0.04 or 0.05% endosulfan, dimethoate 

or fenitrothion, 0.05, 0.1 or 0.15% carbaryl and 0.003, 0.004 or 0.005% decamethrin [deltamethrin] against both 

species was assessed. Fenitrothion was the most effective insecticide against both species, giving 100% 

mortality within 24 h at each dose. Deltamethrin was more toxic to B. dorsalis than to B. cucurbitae while the 

reverse was found with carbaryl. 

1977 In 2-year trials against B. spp. on peach trees, fenthion at 0.075% applied twice in June at 10-day intervals gave 

good control. 

1978 Soil treatment with 105 aldrin at a rate equivalent to 25 kg dust/ha. 


B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Gupta and 

Verma 

B. cucurbitae Momordica 

charantia 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

Haryana Gupta and 

Verma 

1979 Laboratory experiments were carried out to test 13 insecticides against adults of B. cucurbitae Coq., reared from 

naturally infested bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) and fed on pumpkin, using malathion as the standard. On 

the basis of the LC50s, determined by the dry film technique, fenitrothion was 106.9 times, tetrachlorvinphos was 

101.3 times, phosalone was 31.5 times, chlorpyrifos was 22.1 times, carbaryl was 17.8 times, fenthion was 13.8 

times, quinalphos was 9.1 times, parathion-methyl was 8.8 times, trichlorphon was 6.7 times, diazinon was 1.5 

times, gamma -BHC (lindane) was 0.7 times and endosulfan was 0.8 times as toxic as malathion, for which the 

LC50 was 0.01009%. 

1982 0.025% fenitrothion better than malathion. 

Jujube New Delhi Gyi et al. 2003 Field experiments were conducted during 2000/01 and 2001/02 in New Delhi on 15-year-old ber cv. Gola to study 

the effects of lambda-cyhalothrin and beta-cyfluthrin residues. The bio-efficacy of lambda-cyhalothrin and betacyfluthrin 

against the fruit fly Carpomyia vesuviana was also studied. The treatments comprised 8 sprays at 15 

day intervals of 0.25 mg lambda-cyhalothrin and 18.75 mg beta-cyfluthrin/litre. The residues declined to nondetectable 

levels (< 0.007 mg/kg) in 14 days. The initial deposits of beta-cyfluthrin varied from 0.56 to 0.76 mg/kg 

from both the years. beta-Cyfluthrin was not detectable after 7 days of the third spray in the first year and after 10 

days in the second year. lambda-Cyhalothrin (12.38 and 11.02% of fruits damaged) was the most effective 

against C. vesuviana. 

Jujube New Delhi Gyi et al. 2003 Two field trials were conducted in New Delhi during 2000/01 and 2001/02 to evaluate the efficacy of endosulfan 

(0.07%), lambda-cyhalothrin (0.0025%), beta-cyfluthrin (0.00187%), cartap hydrochloride (0.05%), nimbecidine 

[azadirachtin] (5 ml/litre), Neemazal F (1 ml/litre), and alternate sprays of endosulfan and Neemazal against 

Carpomya vesuviana infesting ber [Ziziphus mauritiana] (cv. Gola). Eight sprays of insecticides were given at 15day 

intervals, commencing from the appearance of infestation. Infestation was recorded at harvest. The lowest 

mean C. vesuviana infestation (13.7%) was recorded with lambda-cyhalothrin treatment in the 2000/01 cropping 

season, followed by beta-cyfluthrin (15.1%). The highest mean infestation (37.3%) was recorded with 

nimbecidine treatment. Similar observations were recorded in 2001/02. 

B. cucurbitae Cucumber Himachal 

Pradesh 

B. 

cucurbitae 

Hameed and 

Kashyap 

1980 0.05 fenthion, parathion-methyl, malathion, trichlorphos and fenitrothion with waiting period of five, seven, two 

and nine days, respectively. 

Hameed et al. 1980 Toxicity and persistence of residues of some organophosphorous insecticides applied for the control of B. 

cucurbitae Coquillet on the fruits of cucumber. In the laboratory, fenitrothion and parathion-methyl were found to 

be highly toxic to newly hatched larvae of B. cucurbitae Coq. Malathion and trichlorphon were intermediate, and 

fenthion was the least toxic of the compounds tested. 


B. 

cucurbitae 

B. zonata Peach, apple Palampur, 

Himachal 

Pradesh 

B. zonata Apple, peach Solan, 

Himachal 

Pradesh 

A. helianthi Safflower Madhya 

Pradesh 

Hameed et al. 1980 The safety periods or some of some organphosphorus insecticides applied for the control of B. cucurbitae on the 

fruits of cucumber following treatment were 2 days for malathion, 12 days for trichlorphon, 7 days for parathionmethyl, 

9 days for fenitrothion, and about 5 days for fenthion. 

Hameed et al. 1983 Sprays of malathion were applied at the currently recommended concentration of 0.05% to the point of run-off to 

apple and peach trees in studies. Laboratory tests showed that the spray residues were more toxic to the 

crawlers of Quadraspidiotus perniciosus (Comst.) than to newly hatched larvae of B. cucurbitae Coq. The half-life 

and effective life values of the residues were 2-3 and 5-6 days, respectively, on apple, and 1 and 2 days on 

peach. The period after treatment needed for the residue levels on fruit to fall below the tolerance limit (8.00 

p.p.m. for apple and 6.00 p.p.m. for peach) was 1 day for apple and 1.5 days for peach. The residue levels were 

within the acceptable limits at harvest. (B. zonata wrongly mentioned as B. cucurbitae?). 

Hameed et al. 1985 Residues of fenitrothion in apple and peach fruits were studied by biochemical and chemical assay following 

application to trees, at 0.05%. The half-life and effective life (period of protection) were higher on apple (5-6 and 

23-27 days, respectively) than on peach (3 and 10-11 days). The waiting period before the fruit could be safely 

consumed was 19-22 days for apple and 14-16 days for peach. The intrinsic toxicity of the deposits was greater 

to crawlers of the diaspidid Quadraspidiotus perniciosus than to newly hatched tephritid larvae. (B. zonata 

wrongly mentioned as B. cucurbitae?). 

Jakhmola and 

Yadav 

B. correcta Tamil Nadu Jalaluddin et 

al. 

Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube Rajasthan Joshi and 

Shinde 

1983 Monocrotophos applied four times at intervals of 10 days from breeding stage - then two applications, each of 

phosphamidon, endosulfan, parathion, Vamidothion, Demeton-methyl, malathion or fentrothion. 

2000 The potential of gibberellic acid for reducing the susceptibility of guava fruit to B. correcta was tested 

in Tamil Nadu, India. Gibberellic acid was applied before fruit colour break at 0, 10 20 and 50 p.p.m. to 

the cultivars Lucknow 16, AC 10, Lucknow 49 and Chittidar. Infestation was significantly reduced for 

all 4 cultivars with the highest concentration. These effects were most pronounced on Chittidar and 

Lucknow-49. The progression of fruit colour from green to yellow was negatively correlated with 

acceptability and suitablility of fruit to fly attack and development. 

1972 Carpomyia vesuviana Costa is a serious pest of ber (Ziziphus jujuba) in Rajasthan, damaging up to 90-100% of 

the fruits. A spray programme involving applications of (1) 0.1% methyl-demeton in November, (2) 0.25% DDT or 

a mixture of 0.12% DDT and 0.048% methyl-parathion in December, and (3) 0.05% malathion in January was the 

best of nine programmes evaluated against the Tephritid in the field. 

B. dorsalis Mango Kalid 1995 In the laboratory, Endosulfan 35% EC, cypermethrin 25% EC, methyl parathion [parathion-methyl] 50% EC and 

monocrotophos 36% WSC were tested at 0.001, 0.003 and 0.005% against B. dorsalis. On the basis of mortality 

at 24h after treatment and number of oviposition punctures in mango fruits, cypermethrin and parathion-methyl 

were the most effective insecticides (at 0.003 and 0.005%), followed by monocrotophos. 


B. zonata Peach Himachal 

Pradesh 

B. cucurbitae Peach Himachal 

Pradesh 

B. zonata Peach Solan, 

Himachal 

Pradesh 

B. 

cucurbitae 

B. 

cucurbitae 

Kashyap and 

Hameed 


Hameed 


Hameed 

Kaur and 

Rup 


Rup 

1982 A study was carried out to determine the residues of sprays containing fenitrothion, fenthion, malathion, 

parathion-methyl and trichlorphon, applied to peach trees at 0.05% against B. cucurbitae Coq., in peach fruits at 

harvest. The safety intervals between treatment and consumption of fruit were 14-16 days for fenitrothion, 11-13 

days for trichlorphon, 10-12 days for fenthion, 9 days for parathion-methyl and 1-2 days for malathion. All the 

residues had fallen within acceptable limits by the time of harvest. (B. zonata wrongly mentioned as B. 

cucurbitae). 

1982 Assessment of toxicity and persistence of 5 insecticides applied in sprays at a concentration of 0.05% and 

dosage of 400 g/ha against newly hatched larvae of B. cucurbitae Coq. Fenitrothion and parathion-methyl were 

highly toxic, followed by fenthion and malathion, while trichlorphon was the least toxic. Fenitrothion was highly 

persistent (12 days), followed by parathion-methyl (7 days). All the residues were within acceptable limits at the 

time of harvest. 

1986 The toxicities of fenitrothion, fenthion, malathion, methyl parathion [parathion-methyl] and trichlorfon deposits on 

fruits against the neonate larvae of D. cucurbitae were tested in the laboratory. Fenitrothion was most toxic to the 

larvae followed by methyl parathion, and both can be recommended for application in the orchard. Trichlorfon 

was the least toxic compound. (B. zonata wrongly mentioned as B. cucurbitae). 

1999 Gibberellic acid (GA) at 0, 25, 125, 625, 3125 ppm was applied to eggs, larval instars and pupae of 

melon fruit fly B. cucurbitae, which were reared on fresh pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata). GA resulted 

in significant elongation of the developmental period of the insect. This inhibition in growth was directly 

related to the increasing GA concentration. GA inhibited pupation percentage and adult emergence. 

The number of pupae and adults with aberrations also increased with increasing GA concentration. 

Low GA concentrations (25 and 125 ppm) increased the body weight of emerged flies, but high 

concentrations reduced body weight and length. 

2002 The topical treatment given to freshly emerged (0- to 1-day-old) male and female adults of B. 

cucurbitae, with 25, 125, 625 and 3125ppm concentrations of gibberellic acid (GA3), IAA, kinetin and 

coumarin showed a significant adverse influence on the reproductive potential of this fruit fly. The 

assessment for reproductive potential was made on the basis of reduction in fecundity and fertility of 

laid eggs and measured as sterility in females and shortening of the longevity, i.e. ovipositional phase. 

The strongest influence was with kinetin, followed closely by coumarin, then GA3 and lastly with IAA 

treatments. It was concluded that although these compounds demonstrate their activities differently in 

plants and might be following a different mode of action in insects, they ultimately influence the 

reproductive potential of this insect. 


B. 

cucurbitae 


Rup 

2003 The effects of four plant growth regulators (PGRs), namely, coumarin, kinetin, gibberellic acid (GA3) 

and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), at 25, 125, 625 or 3125 µg/ml on the development of the melon fruit fly, 

B. cucurbitae. All four compounds exerted growth- and development-inhibitory effects on the fly. 

Coumarin was the most potent, followed by kinetin, GA3 and IAA. The first and second instars of the 

fly were more sensitive than the third instar. Treatment with the PGRs also prolonged the 

developmental period, reduced the percentage emergence, and increased percentage of abnormal 

flies emerging. At higher concentrations (125, 625 and 3125 µg/ml), coumarin, kinetin and GA3 

caused 100% mortality in the first instar. 

B. cucurbitae Long melon Rajasthan Kavadia et al. 1977 The effects of malathion and carbaryl with or without the attractant gur were evaluated. Carbaryl was found to be 

superior to malathion in reducing infestation. Mixing gur with the insecticides increased infestation. 

Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Kumar and 

Singh 

1993 Preharvest sprays of GA3 (50 or 75 p.p.m.) or Ethrel [ethephon] (500 p.p.m.) brought forward fruit 

maturity by 8-11 days and ripening by 10-14 days compared with controls, significantly improved fruit 

quality (TSS content, sugar, ascorbic acid and beta-carotene concentrations) and reduced spoilage 

losses during storage, without causing a marked increase in preharvest fruit drop. There was virtually 

no fruit fly damage with plant growth regulator treatment. 

Jujube Lakra et al. 1991 Laboratory and field studies were carried out in India on the effectiveness of some insecticides against 

Carpomyia vesuviana on Ziziphus spp. Of 17 insecticides tested as prophylactic sprays, 0.03% oxydemetonmethyl 

or dimethoate, applied twice, in late October-early November and again 45 days later, kept the incidence 

of the pest below 8% on Z. mauritiana. During ripening of fruits, sprays of either 0.075% endosulfan followed by 

0.1% carbaryl, or 0.1% carbaryl followed by 0.05% malathion + 1% sugar solution, at an interval of 10 days, 

proved effective against the pest. Soil application of fenitrothion, BHC [HCH] or quinalphos dust, each at 25 

kg/ha, under the canopy of trees resulted in a reduction in adult emergence of 80-95%. 

B. dorsalis Guava Mann 1996 Fogging of guava trees with fenvalerate at 450ml a.i./ ha by using Van fog machine was tested against B. 

dorsalis. Six insecticidal applications during the active season of the pest reduced the infestation of fruits from 61- 

68 to 16-22 per cent. It increased the yield of uninfested fruits by 55-58 q/ha. The net gain and the cost:benefit 

ratio were Rs11,000/ ha and 1:3.4 respectively. 

B. dorsalis Guava Punjab Mann 1996 The efficacy of 3 insecticide schedules (5, 3 and 2 sprays) with or without protein hydrolysate bait spray at 

intervals of 7, 14 and 21 days were evaluated against B. dorsalis infesting guava in the Punjab. Fenvalerate 

(0.05%) with protein hydrolysate (Protinex 0.15%), and fenthion (0.1%) with or without protein hydrolysate were 

most effective in controlling fruit fly incidence at all spray intervals. The incidence was lower in 5-spray schedule 

given at weekly intervals as compared to 3-spray schedule at 14-day and 2-spray schedule at 21-day intervals. 


B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Mote 1975 Spraying 3 times at an interval of 15 days starting from fruit setting at the rate of 550l/ha of spray liquid. 

Tetrachlorvinphos at 0.1%, 0.03% Fenthion, 0.1% Carbaryl. 

B. cucurbitae Snake gourd Tamil Nadu Nagappan et 

al. 

B. cucurbitae Nair and 

Thomas 


Thomas 


Thomas 

C. vesuviana Jujube India Narayana and 

Batra 

B. cucurbitae Musk melon Rajasthan Pareek and 

Kavadia 

B. zonata C. vulgaris Jobner, 

Rajasthan 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Junagadh, 

Gujarat 

Pareek and 

Kavadia 

Patel and 

Vyas 

1971 In control trials with 8 insecticides for 3 seasons the best results were achieved with 3 applications of fenthion 0.1 

% or dimethoate 0.1 % at three-week intervals from the time of flowering. 

1999 The effect of extracts of Acorus calamus on the longevity of B. cucurbitae was studied in the laboratory. The 

longevity of adults fed continuously on sugar treated with 0.15% at 1 ml/g sugar was 26.6 days, compared with 

119.2 days for untreated flies. 

2000 Toxicity of A. calamus extracts to various stages of B. cucurbitae were evaluated in a laboratory study. The 

various stages were treated with the extracts and mortalities determined after required intervals of time. The 

mortality values were subjected to Probit Analysis to work out the LC50 values. The aqueous extracts were not 

found to be toxic to any stage, up to 10% concentration. The solvent (methanol) extract was found to be 0.03% 

for eggs and 0.07% for adults. LT50 values were also calculated for a range of concentrations. 

2001 Laboratory experiments were conducted to assess oviposition deterrence effect of A. calamus extracts to the 

melon fly, B. cucurbitae. Laboratory reared flies of uniform age were provided with substrates (2.5 cm3 pumpkin 

pieces) treated with the extracts for oviposition and observations were taken on the mean number of ovipunctures 

and mean fecundity. Both aqueous and solvent extracts showed the deterrent effect, the latter being more 

effective. The mean numbers of ovipunctures, as well as the mean fecundity were inversely proportional to the 

increase in concentration of the extracts. 

1960 Spray ber trees with 0.1 per cent BHC (now banned in India) after middle of October. 

1988 Four spray spplications of 0.2% carbaryl (3,5,9 and 11 weeks after sowing) proved the most effective control. 

1990 0.2 per cent carbaryl, 0.07 per cent endosulfan, 0.03 per cent dimethoate and 0.035 per cent phosalone. Waiting 

periods seven, five, three and three days, respectively. (B. zonata wrongly mentioned as B. cucurbitae). 

1981 Laboratory studies were made on the effectiveness of insecticides in sprays against this species on bitter gourd 

(Momordica charantia). The compounds that gave the highest rates of adult mortality after 8 h were 0.07% 

malathion, 0.1% fenthion and 0.05% endosulfan, dichlorvos, fenitrothion, quinalphos and leptophos (Phosvel), all 

of which were significantly superior to 2 formulations of 0.1% carbaryl (1 with molasses as Sevimol). 


C. vesuviana Jujube Gujarat Patel et al. 1989 Of various insecticides tested against Carpomyia vesuviana on Ziziphus mauritiana in Gujarat, fenthion at 0.1% 

applied 3 times was the most effective against the pest, followed by endosulfan at 0.07%, also applied 3 times. 

Fenthion also resulted in the highest yields, followed by endosulfan and 0.04% malathion. The most economical 

treatments comprised 2 sprays of endosulfan or malathion. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Gujarat Patel et al. 1990 The efficacy of the insecticides fenthion, methyl-o-demeton [demeton-o-methyl], monocrotophos, formothion, 

methyl parathion [parathion-methyl], phosphamidon, dimethoate and thiometon (all 0.03%), malathion 0.07%, 

quinalphos, phenthoate and phosalone (all 0.05%) and decamethrin [deltamethrin] 0.00125% to control 

Carpomyia vesuviana infesting fruit orchards in Gujarat was determined. Dimethoate, fenthion, phosphamidon 

and deltamethrin were the most effective insecticides and infestation levels after treatment were 8.83, 11.86, 

14.90 and 14.95%, respectively, and endosulfan was least effective (20.50%). 

B. cucurbitae Musk melon South India Pawar et al. 1984 Of 6 insecticides used in trials with the cv. Pusa Sarbati, monocrotophos 40 e.c. gave the best result at 0.05% of 

B. cucurbitae. However, the highest yields (5240.7 kg/ha) were obtained from plants treated with permethrin 20 

e.c. at 0.1%. The yields under other treatments ranged from 3638.8 to 5101.7 kg/ha, with 3018.5 kg/ha in the 

control. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Haryana Popli et al. 1980 0.05 per cent malathion - waiting period two days before harvesting fruits for human consumption; washing for 30 

seconds rendered fruit fit even on the day of treatment. Treated leaves can be safely fed to sheep and goats 14 

days after application. 

Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Carypomyia 

vesuviana 

Jujube Tamil Nadu Ragumoorthi 

and 

Arumugam 

Jujube Tamil Nadu Ragumoorthi 

and 

Arumugam 

1992 When 6 insecticides were tested in Tamil Nadu in 1989 and 1990 against Carpomyia vesuviana on ber (Ziziphus 

mauritiana), 2 applications (at the pea stage of the fruits and 15 days later) of 0.1% dichlorvos gave the best 

results (in terms of reduced fruit infestation), followed by 0.036% monocrotophos, 0.05% malathion and 0.07% 

phosalone. 

1992 Five chemical insecticides and 3 plant extracts were tested against 2 pests on Moringa oleifera grown as a 

vegetable crop in Tamil Nadu in 1988-89. All treatments against Gitona sp. (in which the pesticides were applied 

in sprays at 3 litres/tree during 50% fruit set) caused significant reductions in the percentage of fruits infested and 

the mean number of larvae per fruit, as compared with the untreated control. Treatment against Noorda blitealis 

took place during the early vegetative stage and flowering, and all treatments caused significant reductions in 

larval populations up to 21 days after treatment, as compared with the control. The best results against the 2 

pests were obtained with 0.04% dichlorvos and fenthion and 1% neem cake extract and neem oil. 


B. cucurbitae Ccumber, 

ridge gourd 

Carpomyia 

vesuviana 

South 

Andaman 

Ranganath et 

al. 

1997 A number of botanical and chemical insecticides were tested against B. cucurbitae on cucumber [Cucumis 

sativus] and ridge gourd [Luffa acutangula] in South Andaman, India, in June-August 1996. Neem oil at 1.2% was 

the most effective treatment in reducing damage to cucumber (mean percentage damage 6.2%, as compared 

with 39.0% in the control), while neem cake at 4.0% and DDVP [dichlorvos] at 0.2% were the most effective 

against the pest on ridge gourd, reducing damage to 9.1-9.5% as compared with 32.9% in the control. 

Jujube Hyderabad Rao et al. 1995 In field trials carried out in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, during 1992, monocrotophos (0.05%) was the most 

effective out of 9 insecticides tested against Carpomyia vesuviana in ber [Ziziphus mauritiana]. 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd South India Ravindranath 

and Pillai 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Rajandranagar, 

Andhra 

Pradesh 

Zaprionus 

paravittiger 

[Z. indianus] 

Zaprionus 

paravittiger 

[Z. indiana] 

1986 Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) cultivar MC23 was sprayed with one of 4 pyrethroid insecticides or malathion 

at 48, 78 and 102 days after sowing for control of the tephritid B. cucurbitae. Fruit set was not affected by the 

treatments. Permethrin, fenvalerate, cypermethrin (all at 100 g a.i./ha) and deltamethrin at 15 g a.i./ha were all 

more effective in reducing damage than the standard malathion at 500 g a.i./ha up to 16 days after the first and 

second sprays. By the third spray, all 5 insecticides exerted a similar degree of control. There was no significant 

variation among the treatments in the number of female flowers formed and fruits set; on average over the whole 

season, 37-53 % of fruits were damaged under pyrethroid treatments, 59% with malathion and 87% in unsprayed 

plots. 

Reddy 1997 In a field experiment, 8 insecticides were sprayed on bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) against B. cucurbitae at 

fortnightly intervals between 30 and 90 days after sowing. Triazophos was the most effective insecticide against 

the pest. 

Rup and 

Bangla 

1995 Larvae (68- to 72-h-old) of Zaprionus paravittiger [Z. indianus] were fed on methoprene or precocene 

II incorporated in diets at 100 and 500 p.p.m. for 24- and 48-h intervals at 25±2°C and 60-70% RH 

and LD 9:15. The quantitative estimation for protein revealed that feeding of larvae on low concn (100 

p.p.m.) of methoprene for 24 h increased the protein content, whereas higher concn (500 p.p.m.) or 

longer feeding intervals at both concn decreased the protein content. The protein content was 

reduced with both concn and feeding intervals for precocene II treatment. Methoprene treatment 

increased the glycogen content at both concn, except for 500 p.p.m. with longer exposure, while 

precocene II decreased glycogen content. Both growth regulators suppressed the trehalose content. 

Rup et al. 1996 The second-instar larvae of Zaprionus paravittiger [Z. indiana] were treated with diflubenzuron using 2 

concentrations (100, 1000 ppm) at 24 and 48h intervals. Analysis for the hydrolytic enzymes revealed an 

increase in esterase and alkaline phosphatase activity after 24h of feeding, but a decline in enzyme activity was 

observed with prolongation of the exposure interval to 48h compared with that in the control. Nevertheless, the 

acid phosphatase activity was suppressed with diflubenzuron treatment at both time intervals. 


Z. 

paravittiger 

B. tau Ridge gourd Jorhat, Assam Saikia and 

Dutta 

Rup et al. 1998 The influence of gibberellic acid (GA3), a plant growth regulator (PGR), on the protein, total lipid, total 

carbohydrate, glycogen and trehalose contents of Z. paravittiger, was investigated by feeding 63-h-old 

larvae on artificial diet containing 1000, 2000 and 4000 p.p.m. GA3, for 30 and 50 h. The maximum 

increase in the protein content was recorded for the 1000 p.p.m. GA3 treatment. Significant decreases 

in the total lipid and total carbohydrate contents were recorded at 1000 and 2000 p.p.m. while the 

4000 p.p.m. treatment significantly increased their levels. Glycogen content was significantly 

decreased by all the tested GA3 concentrations. The possible reasons for the observed changes in 

these biochemical components are discussed. 

1997 Fenvalerate at 0.02% with 1% molasses was the best of 15 treatments tested against B. tau on ridge gourd (Luffa 

acutangula). The plant products Multineem [a preparation from Azadirachta indica] and Polygonum hydropiper 

leaf extract at different doses were less effective than fenvalerate, cypermethrin and malathion. Multineem, 

however, proved to be superior to P. hydropiper in suppressing attack by the pest. The treatments with molasses 

were more effective than those without molasses. 

B. cucurbitae Samalo et al. 1995 Soil incorporation of 10% aldrin dust at 0.6 g/kg soil caused 66.6% pupal mortality closely followed by granular 

carbofuran (60.0%) at the same rate. 

B. cucurbitae Samalo et al. 1995 In laboratory conditions, baiting with dichlorvos, monocrotophos or quinalphos at a concentration of 0.025% killed 

100% of adults within 6h, as compared with 6.6% mortality in a 10% sugar solution. 

B. cucurbitae Musk melon Sarode et al. 1983 In field studies, sprays of fenthion were applied at concentrations of 0.5 and 1.0% (0.5 and 1.0 kg a.i./ha) to a 

musk-melon crop just prior to harvest for the control of B. cucurbitae Coq. Samples of fruit were taken 0, 3, 5 and 

7 days after treatment, and the residue levels in them determined. Initial residue levels following treatment at the 

2 concentrations were 0.96 and 1.4 p.p.m., respectively, in the whole fruit and 0.35 and 0.6 p.p.m. in the pulp. 

The levels (in both whole fruit and pulp) fell below the tolerance limit (0.2 p.p.m.) after 5 and 7 days for the 2 

treatments, respectively. Half-life values in the whole fruit and pulp were 1.31 and 1.38 days, respectively, for the 

lower dosage and 1.61 and 1.85 days for the higher dosage. Sufficient waiting periods following treatment were 

considered to be about 1-3 days for the pulp and 3.8-4.7 days for the whole fruit. Washing fruits in water resulted 

in 43.5-74.2 and 38.0-52.0% reductions in the residue levels in the whole fruit and pulp, respectively. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Madhya 

Pradesh 

Saxena 1969 Three to four sprays at triweekly interval from last week of November - first two with 0.1 per cent lindane before 

ripening of fruits; third with malathion (0.06 percent emulsion) during ripening of fruits; fourth (if necessary) from 

last week of November or, in early-ripening variety, from first week of November. 


Zaprionus 

paravittiger 

[Z. indianus] 

Sharma et al. 1995 Newly emerged adults of Zaprionus paravittiger [Z. indianus] were transferred to vials containing test 

medium with the cytokinin plant growth regulator kinetin at 25, 125, 625 and 3125 ppm. Treatment 

with 25 or 125 ppm prolonged adult lifespan by 20%, and slowed development of the larvae and 

pupae of the next generation (also raised on the test medium) by 18%. 

B. spp. Peach Sharma et al. 1973 Two sprays of Fenthion followed by Fenithothion. 

B. cucurbitae Watermelon Maharastra Shivarkar and 

Dumbre 

B. cucurbitae Water melon Maharastra Shivarkar and 

Dumbre 


Srivastava 

B. dorsalis Mango 

(alphanso) 

B. cucurbitae, 

B. dorsalis 

1985 Spray of 0.03% Endosulfan and Fenitrothion and 0.1% Permethrin were most effective. 

1985 0.05 per cent monocrotophos. 

1980 The activity of acetylcholinesterase preparations from heads of B. cucurbitae Coq. was inhibited by 5 

organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides (malathion, chlorfenvinphos, dicrotophos, carbaryl and eserine). 

All of the compounds except malathion were strong inhibitors of the enzyme. 

Shukla et al. 1984 In 2-year trials with the mango cv. Alphonso, 7 insecticides were applied in early April and mid April, and twice 

more at 15-day intervals. In both years deltamethrin at 0.0025% gave the best control followed by fenthion 

(0.05%), carbaryl (0.1%) and dimethoate (0.03%). 

Singh and 

Singh 

1998 Neem (Azadirachta indica) seed kernel extracts, (seed kernel aqueous suspension, ethanolic extract of seed 

kernel, hexane extract of seed kernel, ethanolic extract of the hexane extract and acetone extract of deoiled seed 

kernel powder) at 1.25-20%, and pure azadirachtin at 1.25-10ppm were evaluated as oviposition deterrents to B. 

cucurbitae and B. dorsalis on pumpkin and guava, respectively, in the laboratory at 27°C and 65% RH. Neem 

seed kernel aqueous suspension at >=5% in choice tests, and at all concentrations (>=1.25%) in no-choice tests 

significantly deterred oviposition in both species. Similarly, the ethanolic extract was significantly active at all the 

concentrations tested for both species in choice and no-choice tests. However, with neem oil and its ethanolic 

extract sensitivities of the two species differed considerably. Both extracts deterred oviposition by B. cucurbitae at 

all the concentrations tested under both choice and no-choice test conditions. However, with B. dorsalis, neem oil 

was significantly deterrent only at 20% in both tests, and at 5 and 20% for oil ethanolic extract in choice and nochoice 

tests, respectively. The acetone extract of deoiled kernel powder significantly deterred oviposition by both 

species at all concentrations tested. Azadirachtin failed to deter oviposition in either species. 

B. cucurbitae Singh et al. 1974 The effectiveness of sprays containing the parasitic nematode Neoaplectana carpocapsae (DD-136 strain) 

against some injurious insects was studied. T+F18he only test species in which the nematode did not multiply 

were the Tephritid B. cucurbitae Coq. 


Sabour, Bihar Singh et al. 1995 In an experiment at Sabour in Bihar, GA3 and Ethrel [ethephon] were sprayed on the fruits in the first 

week of June 1990 to enhance the ripening and improve the storage life of Amrapalli mango fruits. 

GA3 at 75 and 50 ppm improved the quality and shelf life of fruits. Ethrel at 500 ppm was very 

effective in enhancing the ripening and improving the quality in terms of TSS, total sugar, ascorbic 

acid and B carotene content. Treated fruits also escaped attack by fruit flies. Ethrel at 750 ppm 

improved the quality of fruits but enhanced fruit drop. 

B. dorsalis Mango Uttar Pradesh Singh et al. 1997 Two high volume sprays of deltamethrin (0.002%) gave an 83.3% reduction in the damageof physiologically 

mature and 78.80% in dropped fruit. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Uttar Pradesh Singh et al. 2000 A field experiment was conducted in Uttar Pradesh in 1997 to evaluate the efficacy of the following control 

schedules on ber fruit fly (Carpomya vesuviana) infestation and yield of Ziziphus mauritiana: deep raking soil 

(T1); radial application of phorate as Thimet 10G (118 g/tree) (T2); cypermethrin, endosulfan [application rates 

not given] (T3); phosphamidon (0.05%), chlorpyrifos (0.04%) (T4); monocrotophos (0.05%), malathion (0.05%) 

(T5); dimethoate, econeem [application rates not given] (T6); methyl-O-demeton [demeton-O-methyl] (0.03%), 

sukrina (1.0%) (T7); and an untreated control (T8). All treatments reduced ber fruit fly infestation compared to the 

untreated trees. The T5 schedule resulted in the lowest percentage of fruit infestation at 15 days after the 1st, 

2nd and 3rd sprayings (9.30%, 7.30% and 4.60%, respectively) and the highest mean yield of 10.43 kg/picking 

(compared to 6.58 kg/picking in T8), followed by T4 with 6.3% fruit infestation at 15 days after the 3rd spray and a 

mean yield of 10.26 kg/picking. 

B. cucurbitae Sinha and 

Sharma 

1999 The culture filtrate of Rhizoctonia solani, Trichoderma viride and Gliocladium virens adversely affected the 

oviposition and development of Bactrocera cucurbitae. 

B. dorsalis Mango Tandon et al. 1974 Four sprays of Carbaryl 0.2% or 0.06% dimethoate. The Ist sprays were applied 30 days apart and the last 2 

sprays 2 weeks apart. 

B. cucurbitae Musk melon Tewari 2001 The effect of different extracts from six plant species (Pongamia pinnata, Catharanthus roseus, Vitex negundo, 

Ocimum sanctum [O. tenuifolium], Psoralea corylifolia and Azadirachta indica) on the transmission of cucumber 

mosaic virus (CMV) by B. cucurbitae in Cucumis melo cultivars Arkajeet and Arkarajhans was investigated. All 

plant extracts significantly reduced the vector population and virus incidence compared with the untreated and 

water spray controls. V. negundo and Catharanthus roseus completely inhibited the fruit fly population and the 

incidence of CMV, while A. indica, Psoralea corylifolia, Pongamia pinnata and O. sanctum reduced transmission 

to 10.3, 15.2, 18.3 and 20.5%, respectively. 


B. zonata Apple, peach Solan, 

Himachal 

Pradesh 

Thakur and 

Kashyap 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Kerala Thomas and 

Jacob 

A. helianthi Safflower Jabalpur, 

Madhya 

Pradesh 

B. cucurbitae Verma and 

Pandey 

C. vesuviana Jujube India Wadhi and 

Batra 

B. cucurbitae Wadhwani and 

Khan 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Yadav and 

Kathpal 

1986 Fenitrothion, methyl parathion [parathion-methyl] and malathion were applied to run-off at 0.05% concentration to 

apple (cv. Red Delicious) and peach (cv. Babcock) trees when the fruits were 3-4cm in diameter. Thresholds of 

toxic effectiveness against crawlers of San Jose scale (Quadraspidiotus perniciosus) on apple and larvae of 

peach fruit fly (B. zonata, wrongly described as cucurbitae) were then determined. The threshold level was lowest 

with parathion-methyl, closely followed by fenitrothion, on both fruits, and these compounds gave protection 

against the target pests for more than 15 days. Residues of all 3 insecticides were below the tolerance limits at 

the time of harvest. (B. zonata wrongly mentioned as B. cucurbitae). 

1990 Granular carbofuran applied to the soil at 1.5 kg a.i./ha at the time of sowing, vining and flowering afforded 

83.35% protection against the tephritid B. cucurbitae on bittergourd (Momordica charantia), but residues were 

above the permitted limits. Application at the vining stage and later is not desirable. 

Vaishampayan 1970 Dichlorovos, about two weeks before flowering of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius). 

1980 A laboratory study was carried out to determine the relative toxicities of 9 insecticides to the pumpkin pest B. 

cucurbitae Coq., on the basis of their LC50s and with malathion as unity, using the dry film technique. The results 

showed that tetrachlorvinphos was 100.9 times, phosphamidon was 31.6 times, dichlorvos (dichlorophos) was 

22.21 times, carbaryl was 17.02 times, quinalphos was 9.18 times, parathion-methyl was 8.08 times, parathion 

(ethyl parathion) was 6.18 times and diazinon was 1.05 times as toxic as malathion. 

1964 Triweekly sprays with 0.2 per cent DDT or BHC (now banned). 

1983 In the laboratory adults were fed on baits containing sodium arsenite, sodium arsenate or malathion: these gave 

significant increase in the preoviposition period and a reduction in fecundity. 

1983 To control B. cucurbitae on the Momordica charantia cv. Pusa-do-Mosami, fenitrothion at 0.05% was applied at 

10-day intervals starting at 70 days after seed emergence. Fenitrothion residues decreased to below the 

permissible level (0.3 p.p.m.) within 3 days of treatment and below the detectable level within 7-10 days. 

C. vesuviana Jujube Haryana Yadav et al. 1986 0.03 per cent dimethoate (2.4g a.i./tree) and oxydimetonmethyl (2.8g a.i./tree) - first spray in the first week of 

November and the second in mid-December. In five to seven days reached undetectable levels. Washing of fruit 

recommended to further reduce residue level by about 22 per cent of oxy-dimetonmethyl on days of treatment 

and 10 per cent on the third day of treatment. 


Section 15: Chemical Sterilization 

Fly Location Authors Year Summary 

B. 

cucurbitae 

B. 

cucurbitae 

B. 

cucurbitae 

Adhami 1980 The effects of the chemosterilants apholate, thiotepa and hemel on the sexual vigour and mating 

competitiveness of males were determined by caging groups of 25 sixteen days old virgin females with sterilised 

and normal males in various ratios. It was found that males that had been treated with apholate and thiotepa 

were sexually more competitive than normal males, whereas those treated with hemel were less competitive. 

Ansari and 

Wadhwani 

1972 The mating competitiveness of males of B. cucurbitae Coq. sterilised with 1% hempa in sugar was studied by 

allowing treated and untreated males to pair with virgin females of the same age. There was no indication that 

mating vigour and sexual competitiveness were reduced by the treatment with hempa. In a test in which the ratio 

of normal to treated males was 2:1, the average net sterility was 38.4%, as compared with an expected 33.3%. 

Bodhade et al. 1985 Studies were carried out to determine the sterilant activity of petroleum ether and alcohol extracts of ripe pea 

seeds and the powdered berries of Melia azedarach against B. cucurbitae. The extracts were added to the larval 

diet at doses of 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 mg/1.5 g glucose.There was a linear relationship between the dose of the 

extracts (up to 40 mg) and the reduction in egg viability. Higher doses of alcohol extracts of both plants reduced 

egg hatch; that of pea did not affect fecundity. 

B. cucurbitae Kaur and Rup 2002 The topical treatment given to freshly emerged (0- to 1-day-old) male and female adults of B. cucurbitae, a serious pest of 

cucurbit crops in tropical countries, with 25, 125, 625 and 3125ppm concentrations of gibberellic acid (GA3), IAA, kinetin and 

coumarin showed a significant adverse influence on the reproductive potential of this fruit fly. The assessment for 

reproductive potential was made on the basis of reduction in fecundity and fertility of laid eggs and measured as sterility in 

females and shortening of the longevity, i.e. ovipositional phase. The strongest influence was with kinetin, followed closely by 

coumarin, then GA3 and lastly with IAA treatments. It was concluded that although these compounds demonstrate their 

activities differently in plants and might be following a different mode of action in insects, they ultimately influence the 

reproductive potential of this insect. 

B. 

cucurbitae 

B. 

cucurbitae 

Khan 1976 The effects of three chemosterilants on B. cucurbitae Coq. are described from reciprocal crossing experiments 

in the laboratory with treated and untreated adults. Hempa reduced the fecundity of females, and at a 

concentration of 0.5% no eggs were laid. 

Khan 1976 The oviposition period of females treated with tepa, metepa and hempa (especially hempa) was reduced. The 

degree of sterility was increased when both sexes were treated with chemosterilant. 


B. 

cucurbitae 

B. 

cucurbitae 

B. 

cucurbitae 

Khan and Khan 1977 The effectivenesss of tepa, metepa and hempa, applied in different ways, as chemosterilants was evaluated in 

laboratory tests . Tepa was the most effective material, followed by metepa and hempa in that order. Net sterility 

was 100% when 0.125% tepa or 0.25% metepa was fed to adults on sugar. 

Nair and Thomas 2001 Laboratory studies on the chemosterilant effect of A. calamus extracts on B. cucurbitae were conducted. Results 

revealed remarkable changes in the size and morphology of the reproductive organs of adult flies. The extracts 

were administered to the flies through food at dosages of 0.1-0.01% from the day of emergence. No signs of 

mating or courtship were observed in the treated flies even up to the 25th day after emergence, after which the 

flies died. After the normal pre-oviposition period, the treated flies were dissected. Considerable reduction in 

size of the reproductive organs was noticed in the treated flies compared to the normal ones. Due to a combined 

effect of mating inhibition, reproductive suppression and low survival, fecundity realization was not possible. 

Sankaranarayanan 

and Jayaraj 

1975 When five antibiotics (oxytetracycline (Terramycin), sulphanilamide, penicillin, streptomycin and or ampicillin) 

were applied to adults by three methods, oral administration had more effect on fecundity, duration of adult life, 

and size and weight than topical application or the exposure of the fruit flies to the compounds in films. 

B. dorsalis Thakur and Kumar 1984 Topical applications of diflubenzuron or penfluron at a dose of 5µg/fly to newly emerged adults of B dorsalis resulted in 

complete sterility of both sexes. 

B. dorsalis Thakur and Kumar 1984 In mixed populations of untreated flies and adults that had been sterilised by the topical application of 1 µl 0.5% 

thiotepa, treated flies of either sex were found to be sexually more vigorous than untreated ones. However, 

when the mating competitiveness of either sex was determined separately by using various methods, treated 

males were found not to differ significantly in sexual competitiveness from untreated flies. 

B. dorsalis Thakur and Kumar 1984 3-Indoleacetic acid [IAA], applied topically to adults of B. dorsalis 1-24 h old induced significant sterility in both sexes. No 

effects were observed when flies 13-16 days old were treated. Treatment of immature females at a concentration of 5% 

caused a significant increase in fecundity. The corrected percentage sterility was dose-dependent and increased from 5.03 

to 48.82 with increase of concentration from 0.2 to 5%. 

B. dorsalis Thakur and Kumar 1986 Thiotepa was found to be an effective sterilant for both sexes when applied topically to newly emerged (0-24-hold) 

flies at a dose of 1 µl/fly. No eggs were deposited when treated females were mated with untreated males, 

while when untreated females were mated with treated males, the fecundity of the females was significantly 

reduced. 


B. dorsalis Thakur and Kumar 1987 Adults were treated with 5, 3, 2, 0.5 or 0.1% thiotepa. Treatment reduced the insemination capacity of males, 

based on the presence of sperm in the spermathecae of females, by 50%. There was no effect on the male 

accessory gland fluid. It is suggested that thiotepa has no adverse effect on normal mating behaviour in this 

species 

B. dorsalis Himachal 

Pradesh 

Thakur and Kumar 1988 The sterilant effects of ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) on B. dorsalis were studied in the laboratory, using insects 

collected from the field in Himachal Pradesh. Aqueous and acetone solutions both induced significant sterility in 

both sexes, but the aqueous solution was most effective. 

B. dorsalis Thakur and Kumar 1988 Newly emerged females topically treated with thiotepa at 0.5 and 1.0% had smaller ovaries than untreated flies. 

The reduction in size, however, was not dose dependent. Histological examinations showed that thiotepa 

caused contraction, vacuolization and degeneration of the ooplasm leading the arrest of yolk formation and 

subsequent immaturation of the oocytes. 

B. dorsalis Thakur and Kumar 1988 The chemosterilant thiotepa caused significant reduction in testis size when applied topically to newly emerged 

adult males of the tephritid B. dorsalis [B. dorsalis] at s a dose of 1 mul per fly and a concn. of 0.1 or 0.5%. The 

reduction in testis size was not dose-dependent, and was increasingly apparent as days after treatment 

increased. 

B. cucurbitae Wadhwani and Khan 1983 Studies were carried out to determine the effects of sublethal doses of toxic baits on the reproductive potential of B. 

cucurbitae Coq. There was a significant increase in the preoviposition period and a reduction in fecundity when adults were 

fed on baits containing sodium arsenite, sodium arsenate or malathion. With baits containing dieldrin or carbaryl (Sevin), 

pesticidal stress was apparent in 3rd-generation adults. 


Section 16: Pheromone and Colour Lures 


B. zonata Mango Pusa, Bihar Agarwal and 

Kumar 

1999 Eight poisonous bait and attractant combinations were used in steiner types traps for the annililation of 

adult peach fruit flies. Of these the treatment comprising methyl eugenol (2ml) mango pulp (20g) and 

malathion 50EC (1ml) resulted in maximum trapping of flies. 

B. zonata North Bihar Agarwal et al. 1995 Three different combinations of the attractant methyl eugenol, bait (protein hydrolysate) and malathion 

50 EC were used in trapping males. Methyl eugenol mixed with bait and malathion was significantly 

superior for trapping males as compared with other combinations, i.e. methyl eugenol & malathion and 

bait & malathion. 

B. dorsalis Plum, 

mandarin 

orange 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Vellayani 

(Andhra 

Pradesh) 

Tamil Nadu Balasubramanium 

et al. 

B. spp. Ridge gourd Maharastra Desmukh and 

Patil 

B. dorsalis Mango Tamil Nadu Lakshmanan et 

al. 

B. dorsalis Guava Jammu and 

Kashmir 

B. zonata, B. 

dorsalis, B. 

correcta 

1972 Use of traps baited with 1% methyl eugenol and containing 0.5% malathion reduced D. dorsalis infestation in a 

plum orchard from 23 to 3% in 36 months. In a mandarin orange orchard infestation was reduced from 14.3 to 

0.5% in 15 months. 

Dale and Jiji 1997 Studies on pheromone trapping for the management of melon fly showed negative correlation between melon 

flies trapped and the percentages of damaged bitter gourd fruits. 

Makhmoor and 

Singh 

1996 The fruit fly trap (Trap-F) with methyl eugenol @ 3 ml/trap and baited with 0.05% cent dichlorvos (DDVP) was 

found the most effective and economical treatment against fruit flies (B. spp.) with the lowest percentage of fruit 

infestation, maximum yield and net returns/ha and greatest cost benefit ratio (1:47.8). 

1973 Methyl eugenol used at 1% with 0.1% carbaryl and the traps replenished monthly gave effective control in a 

mango orchard. 

1998 Concentration of 1% methyl eugenol was the most effective with dichlorvos. 

Sapota Gujarat Patel and Patel 1998 A trap consisting of a plastic jar, a plastic funnel and a cotton swab impregnated with 5 drops of methyl eugenol 

as attractant in a glass Petri dish caught a total of 49.36 male fruit flies in a sapota [Manilkara zapota, sapodilla] 

orchard in Gujarat. They belonged to the species B. zonata, B. dorsata and B. correcta. 

B. ciliatus Sapota Southern Gujrat Patel and Patel 1995 Efficacy of a modified trap (Methyl eugenol alone) with the conventional bait trap (Methyl eugenol + DDNP) for 

trapping fruit flies was evaluated. The modified trap proved to be equally effective in trapping the fruit flies without 

extra cost; also the trap involves no use of insecticide so it is ecofriendly too. 

B. ciliatus, B. 

zonata, B. 

dorasta 

Little gourd Gujarat Patel and Patel 1998 Study on efficacy of methyl eugenol trap against fruit flies were carried out and found that methyl eugenol was not 

effective to attract Dacus ciliatus. On the other hand large number of adults of B. zonata and dorsalis were 

attracted tomethyl eugenol. 


B. dorsalis Patel et al. 1996 Two experiments were conducted to identify the optimum dose of methyl eugenol required per trap to attract B. 

dorsalis. 

B. cucurbitae Bitter gourd Maharastra Pawar et al. 1991 Monitoring by using traps baited with the sex attractant tephrit lure. Result showed that cue-lure was a more 

effective attractant than tephrit lure. 


correcta, B. 

zonata 

Kerala Reghunath and 

Indira* 

Mango Tirupati, Andhra 

Pradesh 

2000 Holy basil (Ocium sanctum, a known methyl eugenol source) is used in Kerala (20g of crushed leaves with 0.5g 

each of citric acid and of cabofuran 3G in 100ml of water) at four traps/ha as bait. 

Sarada et al. 2001 An experiment was conducted in a mango orchard to evaluate the different coloured plastic open pan traps viz., 

yellow, white, blue, orange, red and green as attractants for fruit flies such as B. dorsalis, B. correcta and B. 

zonata in three replications at Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, during 2000. During the same year another two 

experiments were conducted with these open pan traps by placing them at different heights (0, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 

metres) above the ground and at different locations in the orchard. An open pan of 60 cm diameter with 7.5 cm 

depth, along with 0.1% methyl eugenol attractant was used for the purpose. Significantly more flies were attracted 

to white (16.953 flies/trap) and yellow (15.317 flies/trap) coloured traps followed by green, orange, red and blue, 

respectively. Lowest number of flies were attracted to blue colour. Traps placed on the ground caught significantly 

most flies (12.433 flies/trap), followed by 1.0m, 2.0m and 1.5m, respectively. Traps in the periphery of the orchard 

attracted more flies (945 flies) than traps in the centre (561 flies). 

B. correcta Mango Southern Gujrat Shah and patel 1976 Tulsi plant (Ocimum sanctum) used as male attractant. Chemical analysis showed that 40% of the essential oil 

content of this plant consisted of methyl eugenol. 

B. correcta Mango Sourthern 

Gujarat 

B. 

Mango, 

cucurbitae, B guava 

dorsalis 


cucurbitae 

Karnataka Shukla and 

Prasad 

Shah and Patel 1976 During studies in southern Gujarat in India on the extent and timing of attacks by B. correcta (Bez.) on mango, 

this fruit-fly was found for the first time on an aromatic plant, Ocimum sanctum (tulsi plant), but only males were 

attracted to it. 

1985 Benzyl acetate is used to attract B. cucurbitae and B. dorsalis. 

Singh and Seghal 2001 Five fractions from distilled A. calamus oil, obtained after column chromatography, were analysed. Fractions that 

were attractive to B. cucurbitae and B. dorsalis, i.e. FI, FII and FV, were further purified and tested on flies, B. 

dorsalis and B. cucurbitae, under laboratory conditions. All fractions were attractive to both flies. FI (beta-asarone) 

was highly attractive to the males of B. dorsalis. FII (acoragermacrone) was attractive to female B. cucurbitae, but 

was only slightly attractive to male flies of the same species. FV (unidentified) was attractive only to female B. 

dorsalis. No fraction showed equal attractiveness to both sexes of either species or to the same sex of both 

species. 


B. dorsalis Mango Pantnagar Uttar 

Pradesh 

Singh et al. 1997 Methyl eugenol (0.2%) was used to bait 4 traps/acre for 18 weeks (2nd April to 30th July) and resulted in a 

reduction in damage of 71.11% in physiologically mature fruits (var. Dashehari) and 71.15% in damage of fully 

ripe dropped fruits. 

B. dorsalis Guava Kapaa Hawaii Stark and Vargas 1992 The response of male oriental fruit fly to colored plastic bucket traps baited with methyl eugenol was determined. 

White and yellow traps caught the largest numbers of flies. The results suggest that the attractiveness of traps is 

due primarily to intensity of refelected light. 

B. dorsalis Mango Bangalore Verghese 1998 Methyl eugenol, which is categorized as a bait for male tephritids, was also found to attract a small number of 

females of B. dorsalis during the active breeding time in a mango orchard at Bangalore, Karnataka, India, in May- 

June 1998. At the time of harvest, numbers of males and females trapped were in almost equal proportions. The 

potential of these findings for avoiding post-harvest mango losses due to B. dorsalis is noted. 

B. spp. Bangalore Verghese et al. 2001 A trap for B. spp. was developed using soaked wooden blocks with methyl eugenol. In an evaluation in 

Bangalore, Karnataka, these traps attracted B. dorsalis, B. zonata, B. correcta and B. affinis for a period of one 

month. The collected flies were dry, which facilitated easy taxonomic identification. 


Section 17: Baits 

Fly Host Location Authors Year Summary 

B. cucurbitae Bitter 

gourd 

Bihar Lall and 

Singh 

B. zonata Mango Pusa, Bihar Agarwal 

and Kumar 

B. zonata North Bihar Agarwal et 

al. 


cucurbitae 


gourd 

B. cucurbitae Long 

melon 

Haryana Gupta and 

Verma 

Rajasthan Kavadia et 

al. 

B. dorsalis Pusa, Bihar Kumar and 

Agarwal 

1969 In tests of bait-traps, in which various combinations of fermented palm juice, sugar, dried mango juice and 

oil of citronella were mixed with 10% diazinon, the catches of flies were highest with mixtures of either 

citronella oil, dried mango juice, palm juice and diazinon or sugar, palm juice and diazinon. 

1999 Eight poisonous bait and attractant combinations were used in steiner types traps for the annililation of 

adult peach fruit flies. Of these the treatment comprising methyl eugenol (2ml) mango pulp (20g) and 

malathion 50EC (1ml) resulted in maximum trapping of flies. 

1995 Three different combinations of the attractant methyl eugenol, bait (protein hydrolysate) and malathion 50 

EC were used in trapping males. Methyl eugenol mixed with bait and malathion was significantly superior 

for trapping males as compared with other combinations, i.e. methyl eugenol & malathion and bait & 

malathion. 

Doharey 1983 Fenithothion applied in bait was the most effective compound, resulting in 100% mortality of both species 

24h after treatment with the lower concentration (0.03%). 

1982 Spray of Fenitrothion in combination with protein hydrolysate or molasses gave the most effective control. 

1977 The effects of malathion and carbaryl with or without the attractant gur were evaluated. Carbaryl was found to be 

superior to malathion in reducing infestation. Mixing gur with the insecticides increased infestation. 

1998 Out of different bait combinations the maximum number of male flies was trapped by 20ml ripe mango pulp 

+ Methyl eugenol (2ml) + Malathion 50EC (1ml) followed by 20 ml fermented palm juice + methyl eugenal 

(2ml) + Malathion 50EC (1ml). 

B. cucurbitae Kumar et al. 1976 A mixture of jackfruit pulp, citronella oil and malathion was the most effective bait. 

B. dorsalis Guava Punjab Mann 1996 The efficacy of 3 insecticide schedules (5, 3 and 2 sprays) with or without protein hydrolysate bait spray at 

intervals of 7, 14 and 21 days was evaluated against B. dorsalis infesting guava in the Punjab, India. 

Fenvalerate (0.05%) with protein hydrolysate (Protinex 0.15%), and fenthion (0.1%) with or without protein 

hydrolysate were most effective in controlling fruit fly incidence at all spray intervals. The incidence was 

lower in the 5-spray schedule given at weekly intervals as compared to 3-spray schedule at 14-day and 2spray 

schedule at 21-day intervals. 


B. cucurbitae Snake 

gourd 

Bangladesh Nasiruddin 

and Karim 

1992 A bait trap (0.5g Dipterex 80SP per 100g sweet gourd flesh), an insecticide spray (0.1% Dipterex 80SP + 

100g molasses per litre of water ) offered stastically similar levels of control of the fruit fly attacking snake 

gourd and kept the pest infestation within 4.9-8.6% as compared to 22.5% in the untreated control in 

farmers field. The catches of fruit fly in bait traps were of 1.6 times more females than males. 

B. cucurbitae Gourd Thrivandrum Pillai et al. 1991 Palayankodan banana fruit impregnated with carbofuran at the cut surface was found very effective in 

trapping and can be used as a good tool for management systems at a lesser cost. 

B. tau Ridge 

gourd 

Jorhat, 

Assam 

Saikia and 

Dutta 

Sasidharan 

et al.* 

B. cucurbitae Satpathy 

and Rai 

B. dorsalis Mango Pantnagar, 

Uttar 

Pradesh 

B. tau Sunandita 

and Gupta 


gourd 

1997 Fenvalerate at 0.02% with 1% molasses was the best of 15 treatments tested against B. tau on ridge gourd (Luffa 

acutangula). The plant products Multineem [a preparation from Azadirachta indica] and Polygonum hydropiper leaf 

extract at different doses were less effective than fenvalerate, cypermethrin and malathion. Multineem, however, 

proved to be superior to P. hydropiper in suppressing attack by the pest. The treatments with molasses were more 

effective than those without molasses. 

1991 In bait plantain fruit was found superior to jaggery, honey and molases. 

2002 Efficiency of indigenous food baits for attracting the adults of B. cucurbitae infesting bitter gourd, 

Momordica charantia, was assessed under field conditions. The bait containing pulp of overripe banana 

(1kg) + Furadan [carbofuran] (10g) + citric acid (1g) was best in luring the fruit fly adults during peak 

activity period of the pest. However, addition of sweet basil [Ocimum basilicum] leaf extract reduced the 

attractiveness of the bait. The bait remained effective up to 10 days after installation in the field. 

Singh et al. 1997 In trials of bait traps, mango juice (5%) was the most effective bait in reducing damage to fruits (36.6% in 

physiologically mature and 17% in dropped fruits). 

Verma and 

Sinha 

2001 The attractant-bait mixture containing boric acid-borax (3:1) as toxicant, protein hydrolysate (4%) as 

attractant in water, when fed to five-day-old adults of fruit fly, B. tau, kept in rearing cages in the laboratory, 

caused 40-98.3 per cent mortality after 24h of exposure with different concentrations (1-12%) of the 

toxicant. The LC50 value was calculated to be 1.95. The bait mixture remained effective up to a week and 

when sprayed on tomato plants caused phytotoxicity, above 2 per cent concentration of the toxicant, within 

24h. 

1977 50 g/l sugar was added to the insecticide sprays used for controlling fruit fly. Endosulfan and carbaryl were 

the most effective insecticides. 


Section 18: References 

Author1 Author2 Author3 Year Title Source Vol Page 

Achala, P.K. 1983 Nutritional behaviour of Dacus cucurbitae(Coquillett) maggots in relation to 

carbohydrates 

Adhami, N. 1980 Sexual vigour and mating competitiveness of chemosterilized males of 

Dacus cucurbitae 

Integrated Management of Fruit Flies in India: Knowledge Review 82 of 110 

MSc, IARI, New Delhi 

Indian J. Ent. 4(1) 34-36 

Agarwal, M.L. Kapoor, V.C. 1985 On a collection of Trypetinae (Diptera:Tephritidae) from Northern India Ann. Entom. (India) 3(2) 59-64 

Agarwal, M.L. Kapoor, V.C. 1989 New records of some hymenopterous parasites of fruit flies from India Bull. Ent., New Delhi 27(2) 192 

Agarwal, M.L. Sharma, D.D. Rahman, O. 1987 Melon fruit fly and its control Indian Hort. 32(2) 38301 

Agarwal, M.L. Yazdani, S.S. 1991 Growth potential of melon fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae in relation to host plants 

in north Bihar 

Agarwal, M.L. 1981 Taxonomy and zoogeography of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Northern 

India 

J. Res. Birsa Agri. 

Univ. 

PhD, Punjab 

Agricultural University, 

Ludhiana. 

Agarwal, M.L. 1988 The genus Dacus fabricius (Diptera : Tephritidae) in India Proc. Int. Symp. Fruit 

Flies Kuala Lumpur, 

Malaysia 

Anand, R. Anand, M. 1990 Nutritive effect of the D isomers of the essential amino acids in casein diet 

on Dacus cucurbitae 

Anand, S.K. Ramchandani, 

N.P. 

3(1) 61-62 

158 

191-203 

Indian J. Ent. 52(4) 525-528 

1984 Fumigation of Alphanso mangoes with ethylene-di-bromide Pl. Prot. Bull. India 36(2-3) 131-132 

Ansari, M.A. Wadhwani, K.M. 1972 Mating competitiveness of normal and chemosterilized males of melon fly, 


Arora, P.K. Batra, R.C. Mehrotra, N.K., 

Thind, S.K. 

Arora, P.K. Kaur Nirmal Batra, R.C., 

Mehrotra, N.K. 

Labdev J. Sci.Tech. 37(2) 41-43 

1998 Screening of some promising guava varieties against fruit fly Proc. Nat. Symp. Pest 

Management Hort. 

Crops Bangalore 

1999 Physico chemical characterstics of some ber varieties in relation to fruit fly 

incidence 

Babu, L.B. Maheshwari, T.U. Rao, N.V. 2001 Pest complex and their succession on mango, Mangifera indica in peninsular 

India 

J. Appl. Hort. 

(Lucknow) 

43-44 

1 101-102 

Indian J. Ent. 63(2) 158-162

Bagle, B.G. Prasad, V.G. 1983 Effect of weather parameters on population dynamics of oriental fruit fly J. Ent. Res. 7(2) 95-98 

Bagle, B.G. 1992 Incidence and control of fruit fly Carypomyia vesuviana of ber Zizyphus 

mauritiana 


Indian J. Pl. Prot. 20(2) 205-207 

Bagle, B.G. 1996 Pest management in ber, pomegranate and sapota IIHR Ann. Rep. 113-114 



Bains, S.S. Sindhu, P.S. 1984 Role of different food plants in the population buildup of melon fly Dacus 

cucurbitae in Punjab 

Indian J. Ecol. 11(2) 297-302 

Bal, J.S. 1992 Ber for health and profit The Tribune, India 112(84) 8 

Bala, A. 1987 Effect of nutritionally different diets on preoviposition period of the fruit fly, 

Dacus tau 

Balasubramaniam, Abraham, E.V. Vijayaraghavan, 

G. 

S., Subramaniam, 

T.R., 

Santhanaraman, 

T., Gunasekaran, 

C.R. 

Ann. Agri. Res. 8(2) 258-260 

1972 Use of male-annihilation technique in the control of the oriental fruitfly Dacus Madras Agri.J. 42(11) 975-977 

dorsalis 

Balikai, R.A. 1999 Pest scenaria of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) in Karnataka Pest. Man. Hort. 

Ecosyst. 

5(1) 67-69 

Banerjee, T.C. 1990 Nocturnal periodicity of natural population of a braconid fly, Opius incisi: size Indian J. Ent. 

and distribution pattern 

51(4) 440-449 

Bardhan, A.K. Singh, J. 1974 Effectiveness of DD-136, an entomophilic nematode, against insect pests of 

agricultural importance 

Basha, J.M.C. 1952 Experiments on the control of the fruit borers of jujube (Zizyphus), C 

vesuviana and M scyrodes in South India 

Pl. Prot. Bull. FAO. 43(19) 622 

Indian J. Ent. 44(3) 229-238

Batra, H.N. 1953 Biology and control of Dacus diversus and Carpomyia vesuviana and 

important notes on other fruit flies in India 

Batra, H.N. 1964 Value of clensel as a chemical attractant and preliminary studies on 

population fluctuations and movement of fruit flies in the orchards 


Indian J. Agri. Sci. 23 87-112 

Indian J. Agric. Sci. 34(1) 28-37 

Bhagat, K.C. Koul, V.K. Nehru, R.K. 1998 Seasonal varialtion of sex ratio in Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett J. Adv. Zool. 19(1) 55-56 

Bhagat, K.C. Koul, V.K. 1999 Seasonal biology of melon fruit fly, Bactrocera (Dacus) cucurbitae Coquillet J. Appl. Zool. Res. 10(2) 128-129 

Bhatia, S.K. Kaul, H.N. 1965 Relative toxicity of some insecticides to adults and maggots of the melon fly, 


Bhatia, S.K. Mahta, Y. 1968 Influence of temperature on the speed of development of melon fly, Dacus 

cucurbitae 

Bhatnagar, K.N. Yadava, S.R.S. 1992 An insecticide trial for reducing the damage of cucurbits due to Dacus 

cucurbitae 

Indian J. Ent. 27(3) 262 

Indian J. Ag. Sci. 40(9) 821-828 

Indian J. Ent. 54(1) 66-69 

Bhatnagar, S. Kaul, D. Chaturvedi, R. 1980 Chromosomal studies in three species of the genus Dacus Indian J. Ag. Sci. 54(1) 42309 

Bhatt, A.A. Bhalla, O.P. 1978 Relative toxicity of some insecticides to the adult of melon fruit fly, Dacus 

cucurbitae 

Indian J. Ent. 2(1) 114-115 

Bindra, O.S. Mann, G.S. 1978 An investigation into lures and traps for the guava fruit-fly Indian J. Hort. 35(4) 401-405 

Bindra, O.S. Mann, G.S. 1981 Relative efficacy of some insecticidal treatments against the guava fruit fly Indian J. Ent. 16(4) 413-416 

Bodhade, S.N. Borle, M.N. Reupathy, A.M., 

Jayaraj 

1985 Sterlity effect of some indigenous plant material on cucurbit fruit fly Behav. Phys. Appr. 

Pest Man. 

Borah, R.K. 1996 Influence of sowing and varieties on the infestation of fruitfly Bactrocera 

cucurbitae (Dacus cucurbitae) in cucumber in the hill zone of Assam 

38-46 

Indian J. Ent. 58(4) 382-383 

Borah, R.K. 1997 Effect of insecticides on pest incidence in cucumber (Cucumis sativus) in hill Indian J. Agri. Sci. 

zone of Assam 

67(8) 332-333 

Borah, R.K. 1998 Evaluation of an insecticide schedule for the control of red pumpkin beetle 

and fruit fly of red pumpkin in the hills zone of Assam 

Borah, R.K. 2001 Effect of sowing dates on incidence of fruit fly (B cucurbitae) and yield of 

cucumber (Cucumis sativus L) in the Hill Zone of Assam 

Indian J. Ent. 60(4) 417-419 

Annals of biology 17(2) 211-212 

Borah, S.R. Dutta, S.K. 1996 Comparative biology of Dacus tau (Walker) on cucurbitaceous vegetables J. Ag.Sci. Soc. NE India 9(2) 159-165

Borah, S.R. Dutta, S.K. 1997 Infestation of fruit fly in some cucurbitaceous vegetables J. Ag.Sci. Soc. NE India 10(1) 128-131 

Bose, P.C. Mehrotra, K.N. 1986 Thrust of the ovipositor of fruit fly Dacus dorsalis Hendel Current Sci. India. 55(19) 1004- 

1005 

Boush 1969 Development of a chemically defined diet for adults of the apple maggot 

based on amino acid analysis of honey-dew 

Boush, G.M. Baerwald, R.J. Miyazaki, S., 

Gupta, M. 

1977 Development of chemically defined artificial diet for Dacus cucurbitae 

Coquillett adults 


Ann. Ent. Soc. Am. 62(1) 19-21 


Butani, D.K 1975 Insect pests of fruit crops and their control 18: melons Pesticides 9(12) 39-43 

Butani, D.K. Jotwani, M.G. 1984 Insects in vegetables Periodical Expert, New 

Delhi-32 

Butani, D.K. Verma, S. 1977 Pests of vegetables and their control: Cucurbits Madras Agri. J. 11(3) 37-41 

Butani, D.K. 1973 Insect pests of fruit crops and their control Madras Agri. J. 7(10) 13-17 

Butani, D.K. 1975 Insect pests of fruit crops and their control Botyu Kagaku. 9(11) 37-39 

Butani, D.K. 1975 Insect pests of fruit crops and their control: Pineapple Labdev J. Sci. Tech. 9(11) 32-36 

Butani, D.K. 1978 Insect pests of fruit crops and their control 25: Mulberry Beitrage zur Ent. 12(8) 53-59 

Butani, D.K. 1978 Insect pests of fruit crops and their control: Custard apple Indian J. Ent. 10(5) 27-28 

Chaturvedi, P.L. 1947 The relative incidence of D ciliatus and Dacus cucurbitae on cucurbit fruits at 

Kanpur 

Chaudhary, B.S. Singh, O.P. Rawat, R.R. 1983 Field evaluation of some insecticides against the safflower aphid, the 

capsule fly and the predator 

Chawala, S.S. 1966 Studies on the nutritional requirements of the fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae IV: 

Response of Dacus cucurbitae larvae to vitamin deficient diets 

Chelliah, S. Sambandam, C.N. 1971 Role of certain mechanical factors in Cucumis callosus in resistance to 


Chelliah, S. Sambandam, C.N. 1972 Inheritance of resistance to the fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae in the interspecific 

cross between Cucumis callosus and Cucumis melo 

Chelliah, S. Sambandam, C.N. 1974 Evaluation of muskmelon Cucumis melo accessions and C. callosus for 

resistance to the fruit fly (Dacus cucurbitae) 

Chelliah, S. Sambandam, C.N. 1976 Distribution of amino acids in Cucumis callosus and C. melo in relation to 

their resistance and susceptibility to Dacus cucurbitae 

356 


Pesticides 17(7) 30-32 

Res. Bull. Punjab Uni. 327-334 

Madras Agri. J. 3(4) 19572 

AUARA. 4(5) 169-171 

Pesticides. 31(4) 346-348 

Indian J. Ent. 11(3-4) 41-43

Chelliah, S. Sambandam, C.N. 1976 Mechanism of resistance in Cucumis callosus to the fruit fly, Dacus 

cucurbitae - I Non-preference 

Chelliah, S. Sambandam, C.N. 1976 Mechanism of resistance in Cucumis callosus to the fruit fly, Dacus 

cucurbitae - II Antibiosis 


Ent. Newsl. 36(2) 98-102 

Proc. Bihar Acad. Ag. 

Sci. 

36(4) 290-296 

Chelliah, S. 1970 Host influence on the development of the melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Labdev J. Sci. Tech. 32(4) 381-383 

Chinnarajan, A.M. Jayaraj, S. 1975 Influence of oxytetracycline and sulphanilamide on the amino acid content in Proc. Bihar Acad. Ag. 

the melonfly, Dacus cucurbitae Coq 

Sci. 

Chintha, R.M. Das, R.K. Mandal, S.K. 2002 Pests and beneficial arthropods occuring on pointed gourd Trichosanthes 

dioica 

44(16) 597-598 

J. Interacademica 6(2) 174-179 

Choubey, P.K. Yadav, H.S. 2000 Screening of different cucurbits against melon fruit fly JNKVV Res. J. 33(1-2) 17-21 

Dale, D. Jiji, T. 1997 Pheromone trapping for the management of melon fly Proc. 9th Kerala Sci. 

Cong. 

Thiruvanathapuram 

Dale, D. Nair, M.R.G.K. 1966 Studies on the relative toxicity of some insecticides to adults of Dacus 

cucurbitae Coquillett When used in bait sprays 

Das, N.M. Ramamony, K.S. Nair, M.R.G.K. 1968 On control of the melon fly, D cucurbitae with some newer synthetic 

insecticides applied as cover sprays 

110 

Agric. Res. J. Kerala 4(1) 74 

Agri. Res. J. Kerala 6(1) 43-45 

Dashad, S.S. Chaudhary, O.P. Rakesh 1999 Chemical control of Ber Fruitfly Crop Research (Hisar) 17(3) 333-335 

Dashad, S.S. Chaudhary, O.P. Rakesh 1999a Studies on the incidence of Ber Fruit fly (Carpomyia vesuviana) in south 

western Haryana 

Crop Research (Hisar) 18 115-118 

Deol, I.S. Sandhu, G.S. Singh, G. 1977 Field screening of peach varieties against peach fruit fly Punjab Hort. J. 17(3-4) 152-154 

Deshmukh, R.P. Patil, R.S. 1996 Comparative efficacy of baited and non-baited sprays of insecticides and 

chemical attractant against fruit flies infesting ridge gourd 

J. Maharashtra Agri. 

Univ. 

21(3) 346-349 

Doharey, K.L. Butani, D.K. 1986 Ecotoxicology studies on Dacus spp Pesticides 20(10) 14-15 

Doharey, K.L. 1985 Bionomics of fruit flies (Dacus Spp) on some fruits Indian J. Ent. 45(4) 406-413 

Doharey, K.L. 1985 Efficacy of some insecticides against fruit flies Indian J. Ent. 45(4) 465-469

Drew, R.A.I. Raghu, S. 2002 The fruit fly fauna of the rainforest habitat of the Western Ghats, India Raffles Bull. Zool. 50(2) 327-325 

Faroda, A.S. 1996 Developed resistance to fruitfly in ber through hybridization ICAR Sci. & Tech. 

Newsletter 

Garg, A.K. Sriharan, S. Prasad, Y., Sethi, 

G.R. 


2(4) 23 

1978 An improved egging receptacle for the collection of eggs of melon fly, Dacus Phytoparasitica 

cucurbitae 

40(1) 93-95 

Garg, A.K. Sriharan, S. Sethi, G.R. 1979 Comparative suitability of tinda (squash melon) and pumpkin as larval diet 

for the development of melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae 

Goel, S.C. Mann, G.S. Sandhu, S.S., 

Goel, S.C. 

1983 Infestation of Citrus limon CV baramasi and Fortunella japonica by Dacus 

dorsalis at Ludhiana 

Current Res. 13(2) 45-47 

Insect Ecol. & 

Resource Man. 

Gowda, G. Ramaiah, E. 1979 Incidence of Dacus dorsalis Hendel on cashew (Anacardium occident) Indian J. Ent. 8(6) 98-99 

Grewal, J.S. Kapoor, V.C. 1986 Bird damage and its effect on infestation by fruit-flies in various orchards in 

Ludhiana 

Grewal, J.S. Kapoor, V.C. 1986 Morpho and Cyto-taxonomy of larval stages of some Dacus species 

(Diptera: Tephritidae) 

99-101 


Ann. Biol. 2 58-66 

Grewal, J.S. Kapoor, V.C. 1987 A new collapasable fruit fly trap J. Ent. Res. 11(2) 203-206 

Grewal, J.S. Malhi, C.S. 1987 Prunus persica damage by birds and fruit fly pests in Ludhiana (Punjab) J. Ent. Res. 11(1) 119-120 

Grewal, J.S. 1981 Relative incidence of infestation by two species of fruit flies Carpomyia 

vesuviana and Dacus zonatus on Ber in Punjab 

Indian J. Ecology 8(1) 123-125 

Gupta, B.P. Joshi, N.K. 1979 Control of peach fruit flies with fenthion Haryana J. Hort. Sci. 17(1-2) 58-59 

Gupta, D. Bhatia, R. 2001 Population fluctuation of fruit flies, Bactrocera spp in submountainous mango J. Applied Hort. 

and guava orchards 

(Lucknow) 

Gupta, D. Verma, A.K. Bhalla, O.P. 1990 Population of fruit flies Dacus zonatus and Dacus dorsalis infesting fruit 

crops in Northern Western Himalayan region 

Gupta, D. Verma, A.K. Gupta, D. 1992 Population fluctuations of the maggots of fruit flies (Dacus cucurbitae and D Advances in Plant 

tau) infesting cucurbitaceous crops 

Sciences 

2(1) 47-49 


5 518-523 

Gupta, D. Verma, A.K. 1993 Biology of Dacus tau (Walker) on different vegetable hosts J. Insect Sci. 6(2) 299-300 

Gupta, D. Verma, A.K. 1995 Host specific demographic studies of the melon fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae J. Insect. Sci. 8(1) 87-89

Gupta, J.N. Verma, A.N. Kashyap, R.K. 1978 An improved method for mass rearing of melon fruitfly Dacus cucurbitae Indian J. Ent. 40(4) 470-471 

Gupta, J.N. Verma, A.N. 1978 Effectiveness of some insecticidal dusts, applied to soil, against the last 

stage maggots of melon fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae 

Gupta, J.N. Verma, A.N. 1978 Screening of different cucurbit crops for the attack of the melon fruit fly 


Gupta, J.N. Verma, A.N. 1979 Relative efficacy of insecticides, as contact poisons, to the adults of melon 

fruitfly, Dacus cucurbitae 

Gupta, J.N. Verma, A.N. 1982 Effectiveness of fentrothion bait sprays against melon fly, D cucurbitae in 

bitter gourd 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 1992 Effect of different salt mixtures and different quantities of HMV salt mixture 

on the growth and survival of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots under 

aseptic conditions 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 1993 Effect of different constituents salts of HMW salt mixture on growth and 

development of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggot in artificial diet 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 1994 Effect of salts of manganese, zinc and copper on the growth and survival of 

Dacus cucurbitae (Coq) maggots through chemically defined artificial diet 

under aseptic conditions 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 1994 Effects of iron salt on growth and development of Dacus cucurbitae (Coq) 

maggots in artificial diet under aseptic conditions 


Canadian J. Genetics 

Cyto. 

7(3) 133-135 

Indian J. Pl. Prot 7(1-2) 78-82 

Punjab Hort. J. 41(2) 117-120 

Indian J. Agri. Res 16(1) 41-46 

Indian J. Ent. 54(3) 290-298 

Uttar Pradesh J. Zool. 13(1) 71-75 

Indian J. Ent. 56(3) 209-215 

Indian J. Ent. 56(3) 299-304 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 1994 Effects of salts of boron, molybdnum and cobalt on the growth and survival Indian J. Ent. 

of Dacus cucurbitae (Coq) maggots through chemically defined artificial diet 

under aseptic conditions 

56(3) 292-298 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 2001 Effect of different salt mixture and different quantities of Wesson's salt 

mixture on the various parameters of reproduction potential of Dacus 

cucurbitae (Coquillett) adults 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 2001 Effect of different vitamins on various parameters of reproductive potential of 

Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 2001 Quantitative effect of choline on the Reproductive Potential of Dacus 

cucurbitae adults 

Indian J. Ent. 63(1) 78-86 

Shashpa 7(2) 137-142 

Indian J. Ent. 63(1) 87-91

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 2002 Effect of deletion of salts on reproductive potential of Bactocera cucurbitae 

salts with different cations constituting Wesson's salt mixture 

Gupta, K. Anand, M. 2003 Effect of deletion of salts of reproductive potential of Bactrocera cucurbitae 

II, salts with different anions constituting Wesson's salt mixture 


Indian J. Ent. 64(2) 153-159 

Indian J. Ent. 65(1) 103-108 

Gupta, M. Pant, N.C. Lal, B.S. 1982 Symbiotes of Dacus cucurbitae II Cultivation and identification Indian J. Ent. 44(4) 331-336 

Gupta, M. Pant, N.C. Lal, B.S. 1982 Symbiotes of Dacus cucurbitae III Transmission Indian J. Ent. 44(4) 337-343 

Gupta, M. Pant, N.C. Lal, B.S. 1982 Symbiotes of Dacus cucurbitae l Location and nature of association Indian J. Agri. Sci. 44(4) 325-330 

Gupta, M. 1976 Symbiotic microorganisms in Dacus cucurbitae with special reference to 

their functions 

PhD Bihar University, 

Muzaffarpur 

Gupta, M. 1982 Symbiotes of Dacus cucurbitae: Location and nature of associtation Indian J. Ent. 41(2) 117-120 

Gupta, R.L. 1960 Preliminary trial of bait spray for the control of fruit flies in India Indian J. Ent. 20 304-306 

Hameed, S.F. Kashyap, N.P. Thakur, A.K. 1985 Residue of fentrothion on apple and peach and its toxicity to pest insects Indian J. Ent. 47(2) 206-210 

Hameed, S.F. Suri, S.M. Kashyap, N.P. 1980 Toxicity and persistence of residues of some organophosphorus insecticides Indian J. Agri. Sci. 

applied for the control of C cucurbitae on fruits of cucumber 

50(1) 73-77 

Hameed, S.F. Thakur, A.K. Kashyap, N.P. 1983 Residues of malathion on apple and peach in Himachal Pradesh Indian J. Ent. 5(1) 76-79 

Hancock, D.L. McGuire, DanJ. 2002 New species and records of non-dacine fruit flies from south and southeast 

Asia 

IIHR Integrated management of fruit borer on tomato with African Marigold as a 

Trap crop 

IIHR Integrated pest management on cabbage using Indian Mustard as a trap 

crop 

121 

Steenstrupia 27(1) Jan-17 

IIHR Extension Folder 53 6 

IIHR Extension Folder 33 6 

Inayatullah, C. Khan, L. 1991 Indian J. Ent. 53(2) 239-243

Indragopalan 1981 Nutrition of vegetable crops Nutrition 15 15-19 

Jakhmola, S.S. Yadav, H.S. 1983 Efficacy of insecticides against safflower capsule fly, A helianthi Rossi Indian J. Ent. 45(3) 253-257 

Jalaluddin, S.M. Natarajan, K. Sadakathulla, S., 

Balasubramaniyan, 

S. 

1999 Discovery of the guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) Entomon 24(2) 195-196 

Jalaluddin, S.M. Natarajan, K. Sadakathulla, A. 2000 Enhancement of guava resistance to the fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta J. Experimental Zool. 3(2) 193-197 

Jalaluddin, S.M. Natarajan, K. Sadakathulla, S. 2000 Response of guava cultivars for resistance to guava fruit fly, Bactrocera 

correcta Bezzi 

Jalaluddin, S.M. Natarajan, K. Sadakathulla, S. 2001 Population fluctuation of guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta in relation to 

hosts and abiotic factors 

Jalaluddin, S.M. Natarajan, K. Sadakathulla, S. 2001 Response of fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) to different shapes of 

guava fruit 

Jayanthi, P.D.K. Verghese, A. Sreedvei, K. 2001 Effect of ovipositional duration on pupal recovery, adult emergence and sex 

ratio of mango fruit fly, B dorsalis (Hendel) 

Jayanthi, P.D.K. Verghese, A. 2002 A simple and cost-effective mass rearing technique for the tephritid fruit fly 

Bactrocera dorsalis 


J. Appl. Zool. Res. 11(2-3) 113-114 

J. Experimental 

Zoology 

J. Experimental 

Zoology 

4(2) 323-327 

4(2) 335-336 

Insect Environment 6(4) 147-148 

Current Sci. 82(3) 266-268 

Joshi, H.C. Shinde, V.K.R. 1972 Control of ber fruit fly, C. vesuviana Indian J. Ent. 33(2) 142-147 

Joshi, V.R. Pawar, D.B. Lawande, K.E. 1995 Effects of training systems and planting seasons on incidence of fruit fly in 

bitter gourd 

Kalia, V. Srivastava, M.L. 1992 Ovipositional behaviour and development of the oriental fruit fly Dacus 

(strumeta) dorsalis Hendel on development stages of mango fruit 

J. Maharashtra Agri. 

Univ. 

20(2) 290-291 

Bull. Ent. New Delhi. 33(1-2) 88-93 

Kalia, V. 1992 Bionomics of fruit fly Dacus dorsalis on some cultivars of mango and guava Bull. Ent. New Delhi 33(1-2) 79-87 

Kalia, V. 1995 Chemical control of oriental fruit fly Dacus dorsalis (Hendel) Indian J. Ent. 57(1) 68-70 

Kapoor, V.C. Agarwal, M.L. Grewal, J.S. 1977 Zoogeography of Indian Tephritidae (Diptera) Indian J. Ent. 11(4) 605-621 

Kapoor, V.C. Grewal, J.S. 1977 A new species of Actinoptera Rodani with distributional records of other fruit 

flies from India 

Entomological News 

(USA) 

88(5-6) 148-150

Kapoor, V.C. Grewal, J.S. Agarwal, M.L. 1977 New records of three fruit flies[Thermara maculipennis, Xanthorrachis 

annandalei, Rhabdochaeta bakeri] (Diptera; Tephritidae) from India 


Entom. News (USA) 88(9-10) 262 

Kapoor, V.C. Malla, Y.K. Ghose, K. 1979 On a collection of fruit flies from Kathmandu valley [Nepal] Oriental Insects 13(1-2) 81-85 

Kapoor, V.C. 1970 Indian Tephritidae with their recorded hosts Oriental Insects 49(2) 207-251 

Kapoor, V.C. 1993 Indian Fruit Flies International Science, 

New York 

Kashyap, N.P. Hameed, S.F. 1982 Evaluation of some organophosphorus insecticides against Dacus 

cucurbitae on peach 

228 

Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 91(1) 45-55 

Kashyap, N.P. Hameed, S.F. 1982 Residues of some organophorous insecticides on peach fruits at harvest Indian J. Agri. Sci. 52(1) 41548 

Kashyap, N.P. Hameed, S.F. 1986 Toxicity deposits of some organophorous insecticides on peach fruits 

against D cucurbitae 

Kaur, K. Srivastava, B.G. 1994 Effect of amino acids on various parameters of reproductive potential of 


Kaur, R. Rup, P.J. 1999 Evaluation of gibberellic acid against immature stages of Bactrocera 

cucurbitae 

Proc. Nat. Symp. 

Temp. Fruits Solan 

375-379 

Indian J. Ent. 56(4) 370-380 

J. Insect Sci. 12(1) 41883 

Kaur, R. Rup, P.J. 2002 Evaluation of regulatory influence of four plant growth regulators on the 

reproductive potential and longevity of melon fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) 

Phytoparasitica 30(3) 224-230 

Kaur, S. Sharma, R. Grewal, J.S., 

Kapoor, V.C. 

1993 Scanning electron microscopy in the identification of fruit flies: A useful 

approach in management 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1991 Effect of B-vitamins on various parameters of reproductive potential of 


Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1991 Effect of ribonucleic acid on various parameters of reproductive potential of 


J. Insect Sci. 6(2) 229-231 

Indian J. Ent. 53(4) 543-547 

Indian J. Ent. 53(4) 531-534 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1994 Effect of alpha-tocopherol and its different quantities on various parameters Indian J. Ent. 

of reproductive potential of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) 

56(4) 364-369 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1995 Effect of ascorbic acid and its different quantities on various parameters of 

reproductive potential of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1995 Effect of cholesterol on various parameters of reproductive potential of 


Indian J. Ent. 57(2) 151-156 

Indian J. Ent. 57(1) 64-66

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1995 Effect of different quantities of sucrose on varios parameters of the 

reproductive potential of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1995 Effect of minerals on various parameters of reproductive potential of Dacus 

cucurbitae 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1995 Evaluation of artificial diets for their effect on various parameters of 

reproductive potential and the effect of host fruit on preoviposition period of 

Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1995 Longevity and reproduction of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) adults in the 

absence of water, sucrose and yeast hydrolysate (enzymatic) individually 

Kaur, S. Srivastava, B.G. 1996 Evaluation of artificial receptacle for oviposition bu Dacus cucurbitae 

(Coquillett) 

Kaur, S. 1991 Investigation on the reproductive potential of Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett in 

relation to nutrients 

Kavadia, V.S. Gupta, H.C.L. Pareek, B.L. 1978 Comparative efficacy and residues of insecticides applied singly or in 

mixture with attractants against fruit fly affecting long melon (Cucumis 

utilissimus Duthie & Fuller) 


Indian J. Ent. 57(2) 94-101 

Indian J. Ent. 57(1) 33-35 

Indian J. Ent. 57(2) 130-134 

Indian J. Ent. 57(2) 146-150 

Indian J. Ent. 57(3) 245-248 

PhD, IARI, New Delhi 121 

Pesticides 5(2) 183-187 

Khan, S. Khan, N.H. 1976 Development of insecticide resistance in Dacus cucurbitae Coq Current Sci. 41(1) 38267 

Khan, S. Khan, N.H. 1977 Chemosterilization of Dacus cucurbitae Coq Indian J. Ent. 38(1) 38261 

Khan, S. 1976 Effect of tepa, metepa and hempa on the bionomics of Dacus cucurbitae 

Coq 

Scientific Pest Cont. 

(Japan) 

41(1) 20-21 

Khandelwal, R.C. Nath, P. 1978 Inheritance of resistance to fruit fly in watermelon Ent. Newsl. 20(1) 31-34 

Kkumar, M. Lall, B.S. 1984 Incidence of insect pests of litchi fruits in different lacalities of Bihar Bull. Ent. 25(1) 98-99 

Koul, K. Bhagat, K.C. 2000 Some observations on post maggot phase and egg recovery of melon fly 

Bactrocera cucurbitae 

J. Adv. Zool. 21(1) 51-53 

Koul, V.K. Bhagat, K.C. 1994 Biology of melon fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae on bottle gourd Pest Manag. Eco. Zool. 2(2) 123-125 

KrishnaMoorthy, 

P.N. 

KrishnaKumar, 

N.K. 

EdwardRaja, M. 2001 Neem and Pongamia cakes in the management of vegetable pests Proc. 1st Nat. Symp. 

Pest Management Hort. 

Crops Bangalore 

74-75

KrishnaMoorthy, 

P.N. 

Srinivasan, K. 1997 Evaluation of neem products and standard chemicals for the management of 

bean fly, Ophiomyia phaseoli (Tryon) in French beans 

Kumar, A. Singh, B.N. Yazdani, S.S., 

Sinha, R.P., 

Mohammed, A. 


Neem & Environment 

Eds Singh, Chari 

1976 Efficacies of different baits against melon fly Proc. Bihar Acad. Agric. 

Sci. 

24(2) 71-74 

Kumar, K.K. 1995 Studies on the major pests of fruit crops and their management in mango IIHR Ann. Rep. 125-126 

Kumar, N.P. Anand, M. 1992 Effect of vitamins on the growth and survival of Dacus dorsalis (Hendel) 

maggots 

Kumar, S. Bhatt, R.I. 2002 Crop losses due to fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta Bezzi in some commercial 

varieties of mango 

Kumar, S. Nair, A.G. Bhatt, R.I. 2002 Evaluation of promising and released mango hybrids for multiple pest 

resistance 

Kumar, S. Patel, C.B. Bhatt, R.I., 

Padhiar, B.V., 

Patel, B.G. 

1994 Qualitative and quantitative losses on some commercial varieties of mango Pest Man. & Econ. 

due to Bactrocera correctus Bezzi (Diptera : Tephritidae) in South Gujarat Zool. 

Indian J. Ent. 54(2) 139-149 

J. Applied Zool. Res. 13(1) 64-65 

J. Applied Zool. Res. 13(1) 66-68 

2(1) 91-92 

Kumar, V. Agarwal, M.L. 1998 Efficacies of different baits combinations against oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera J. Res. (BAU) 

dorsalis (Hendel) 

10(1) 83-86 

Kushwaha, K.S. Pareek, B.L. Noor, A. 1973 Fruit fly damage in cucurbits at Udaipur Uni. U. Res. J. 11 22-33 

Lakra, R.K. Sangwan, M.S. Singh, Z 1991 Effect of application of some insecticides on the incidence of 'Ber' Fruit Fly 

(Carpomyia vesuviana Costa) 

Lakshmanan, P.L. Balasubramaniam, Subramaniam, 

G. 

T.R. 

1973 Effect of methyl eugenol in the control of the oriental fruit-fly Dacus dorsalis 

Hendel on mango 

Lall, B.S. Singh, B.N. 1969 Studies on the biology and control of melon fly, D cucurbitae (Diptera: 

Tephritidae) 

Lall, B.S. Sinha, R.P. 1974 Reaction of different cucurbit varieties to invasion by melon fly, Dacus 

cucurbitae Coq 

Narendra Deva J. Ag. 

Res. 

6 71-79 

Progressive Hort. 60(7) 628-629 

Labdev J. Sci. & Tech. 7B(2) 148-153 

Proc. Bihar Acad. Agri. 

Sci. 

22-23 100-103 

Lall, B.S. Sinha, S.N. 1959 On the biology of the melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Sci. Cult. 25 159-161 

Makhboor, H.D. SinghT.S. 1998 Effective concentration of methyl eugenol for the control of guava fruit fly 

Dacus dorsalis Hendel in guava 

Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 6(2) 165-169

Makhmoor, H.D. Singh, S.T. 1999 Effect of cultural operations on pupal mortality and adult emergence of 

guava fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel 

Mann, G.S. Bindra, O.S. 1976 Evaluation of different jujube cultivars for resistance to the Ber [Zizyphus 

mauritiana] fruit fly 

Mann, G.S. Bindra, O.S. 1977 Field incidence of Dacus dorslis on different cultivars of peach (Prunus 

persica) at Ludhiana 

Mann, G.S. 1986 Potency of different insecticides at various spray intervals with/ without 

protein hydrolysate bait against Dacus dorsalis Hendel infesting guava in 

Punjab 


Ann. Plant Prot. Sci. 7(1) 33-36 

Punjab Hort. J. 16(1-2) 64-67 

J. Res. Punjab Agri. 

Uni. 

6th Int. Cong. Pesticide 

Chemistry Ottawa 

14(4) 507-508 

Mann, G.S. 1994 Fruit flies as pests of phalsa, Grewia asiatica Most, in Punjab J. Insect Sci. 7(2) 136-137 

Mann, G.S. 1996 Control of fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis, on Guava by fogging J. App. Zool. Res. 7(2) 92-93 

Mann, G.S. 1996 Relative efficacy of some insecticides with or without protein hydrolysate bait 

against the Oriental fruit fly infesting guava in Punjab 

Mishra, P.N. Singh, M.P. 1999 Studies on the ovicidal action of diflubenzuron on the eggs of Dacus 

cucurbitae damaging cucumber 

Pest Man. & Econ. 

Zool. 

4 71-75 

Annal. Pl. Prot. Sci. 7(1) 94-96 

Mohan, K.Naga Ray, P. Chandra, H.Sharat 2002 Characterization of the genome of the mealybug Planococcus lilacinus, a 

model organism for studying whole-chromosome imprinting and inactivation 

Genetical Res. 79(2) 111-118 

Mote, U.N. 1975 Control of fruit fly ( Dacus cucurbitae) on bitter gourd and cucumber Indian J. Hort. 9(8) 36-37 

Murthy, J.N.A. Regupathy, A. 1992 Seasonal incidence of moringa fruit fly, Gitona sp South Indian Hort. 40 43-48 

Nagappan, K. Kamalanathan, S. Santhanaram, T., 

Ayyasamy, M.K. 

Nagappan, K. Kamalnathan, S. Shantharaman, T., 

Ayyaswamy, M.K. 

1971 Insecticidal trials for the control of fruit fly, D cucurbitae infesting snake 

gourd, T anguina 

1970 Insecticidal trial for the control of melon fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae infesting 

snake gourd (Trichosanthes anguina) 

Nair, S. Thomas, J. 2000 Evaluation of toxicity of Acorus calamus extracts to various stages of 


Nair, S. Thomas, J. 2001 Evaluation of the chemosterilants effects of Acorus calamus extracts on 

melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae 

Madras Ag. J. 58(8) 688-690 

Madras Ag. J. 57 24 

Entomon 25(4) 323-329 

J. Tropical Agriculture. 39(2) 145-148

Nair, S. Thomas, J. 2001 Oviposition deterence of Acorus calamus on melon fly, Bactrocera 

cucurbitae 


J. Tropical Agriculture. 39(2) 149-150 

Narayanan, E.S. Batra, H.N. 1960 Fruit flies and their control ICAR, Pub. New Delhi 68 

Narula, J.K. Gandhi, J.R. 1995 Aggregation and some aspects of digestive physiology in Dacus cucurbitae Indian J. Ent. 

Coquillett (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

57(4) 344-355 

NasirUddin, M. Alaman, S.N. Zaman, M.F., 2000 Efficacy of pheromone and mashed sweet gourd trap for the management of Cuc. Fly Man. Report, 

Khorsheduzzaman, 

A.K.M., Jasmine, 

H.S., Alam, M.S. 

cucurbit fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae Coq) in cucumber 

BARI, Bangladesh 

Nath, G. Agnihotri, S. 1984 Removal of endosulfan from bitter gourds by home processings Entomon 18(8) 13-15 

Nath, P. 1964 Observations on resistance of cucurbits to fruit fly Indian J. Hort. 21(1) 173-175 

Nath, P. 1964 Resistance of cucurbits to the red pumpkin beetle Indian J. Ent. 58(40) 382-383 

Nath, P. 1966 Varietal resistance of ground to the fruit fly Indian J. Hort. 23(182) 69-79 

Nath, P. 1971 Breeding cucurbitaeous crops for resistance to insect pests SABRAO New Lett. 3(2) 53-60 

Nayyar, K.K. Ananthakrishnan, 

T.N. 

David, B.V. 1992 General and Applied Entomology Tata McGraw Hill, New 

Delhi 

Nishida, T. 1963 Zoogeographical and ecological studies of Dacus cucurbitae in India Hawaii Ag. Exp. St. 

Tech. Bull. 

38143 

589 

54 28 

Pal, A.B. Srinivasan, K. Vani, A. 1983 Development of breeding lines of muskmelon for resistance to fruitfly Progressive Hort. 15(1-2) 100-104 

Pandey, M.B. Mishra, D.S. 1999 Studies on movement of Dacus cucurbitae maggots for pupation Shashpa 6(2) 137-144 

Pant, J.C. Srivastava, B.G. Anand, M. 1990 Role of pH in the diet of Dacus dorsalis (Hendel) maggots under aseptic 

conditions 

Indian J. Ent. 51(4) 408-410 

Pareek, B.L. Kavadia, V.S. 1986 Seasonal incidence of insect pests on cucurbits in Rajasthan Ann. Arid Zone 25(4) 300-311

Pareek, B.L. Kavadia, V.S. 1988 Economic insecticide control of two major pests of musk melon, Cucumis 

melo, in the pumpkin beetle, Raphidopalpa spp and the fruitfly, Dacus 

cucurbitae in Rajasthan, India 


Tropical Pest Manag. 34(1) 15-18 

Pareek, B.L. Kavadia, V.S. 1990 Pest complex of wild variety of pomegranate, Pucnica granatum L in Jammu Pl. Prot. Bull. 

and Kashmir 

40(2) 21 

Pareek, B.L. Kavadia, V.S. 1994 Relative preference of fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett on different 

cucurbits 

Indian J. Ent. 56(1) 72-75 

Pareek, B.L. Kavadia, V.S. 1994 Screening of musk melon varieties against red pumpkin beetle (Aulacophora Indian J. Ent. 

foveicollis Lucas) 

55(3) 245-251 

Pareek, B.L. Kavadia, V.S. 1995 Screening of musk melon varieties against fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae under 

field conditions 

Parihar, D.R, 1983 Some ecological observations of insect pests of aak (Calotropis procera) 

and their significance in Rajasthan desert 

Parihar, D.R. 1985 Breeding biology of aak fruitfly, Dacus (Leptoxyda) longistylus Wied(Diptera: 

Tepritidae) on Calotropis procera plantations in Indian desert 

Paripurna, K.A. Srivastava, B.G. 1988 Effect of different quantities of water in the chemically defined diet on the 

growth and development of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots under 

aseptic condition 

Patel, B.H. Upadhyay, V.R. Muridharan, C.M., 

Judal, G.S. 

Patel, I.S. Upadhyay, V.R. Vyas, H.N., Patel, 

A.T. 

1989 Comparative efficacy of different insecticides against ber fruit fly, C. 

vesuviana 

1990 Field bioefficacy of different insecticides for the control of ber fruit fly, C 

vesuviana 

Indian J. Ent. 57(4) 417-420 

Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 

India 

4(3) 191-195 

South Indian Hort. 7(3) 213-216 

Indian J. Ent. 49(2) 259-262 


Gujarat Agri. Uni. Res. 

J. 

Patel, M.M. Vyas, H.S. 1981 Laboratory evaluation of some insecticides against adults of cucurbit fruit fly Zeitschrift Angewandte 

Zool. 

Patel, N.V. 1989 Biology of fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae (Coq) on cucurbits and its chemical 

control on bitter gourd 

MSc GAU, Sardar 

Krushinagar 

16(1) 57-59 

15(9) 25-26 

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1996 Eco-friendly fruit fly trap J. Appl. Zool. Res. 7(2) 124-125 

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1996 Influence of weather parameters on incidence of fruitfly, Dacus ciliatus on 

Little Gourd 

Indian J. Ent. 58 239-244

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Biology of fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew (Tephritidae: Diptera) infesting little 

gourd, Coccinia indica W & A 


Gujarat Ag. Uni. Res. J. 23(2) 54-60 

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Biology of fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus on little gourd, Coccinia indica Indian J. Ent. 60(2) 165-170 

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Emergence of adult fruit fly Dacus ciliatus Loew Insect Envi. 4(1) 8 

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Fruit size and oviposition in the fruit fly Dacus ciliatus Loew (Tephritidae: 

Diptera) 

Insect Envi. 4(1) 8 

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Influence of hosts on the development of fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew Indian J. Ent. 60(3) 313-314 

Patel, R.K. Patel, C.B. 1998 Preference of hosts for oviposition by fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus Loew Indian J. Ent. 60(3) 320 

Patel, R.K. 1994 Bionomics and Control of Fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus, Infesting Little Gourd, 

Coccinia indica 

Patel, S.N. 1976 The bionomics and control measures of Ethiopian fruit fly, Dacus ciliatus MSc GAU, Sardar 

Krushinagar 

PhD GAU, Navsari 149 

Patil, P.D. 1982 Chemical control of mango fruitflies (Dacus dorsalis Hendel) Fruit Res. Worksh. Tec. 

Doc., Nagpur 

Pawar, D.B. Mote, U.M. Lawande, K.E. 1991 Monitoring of fruit fly population in bitter gourd crops with the help of lure 

traps 

Pawar.D.B. Joi, M.B. Sonone, H.N. 1984 Chemical control of red pumpkin beetle and fruit fly of musk-melon by 

modern insecticides 

17 474 

Maharashtra Agri. Univ. 16(2) 281 

South Ind. Hort. 32(5) 317-318 

Pillai, O.A.A. Anbu, S. 1983 A new ribbed gourd (Luffa actangula Roxb) Madras Agri. J. 70(6) 420 

Pillai, S.N. Patel, J.R. Patel, A.J 1979 Control of fruit rot in muskmelon Punjab Hort. J. 7(1) 17-22 

Popli, S. Kathpal, T.S. Lakra, R.K. 1980 Note on dissipation of malathion residues from jujube fruits and leaves Indian J. Agri. Sci. 50(2) 191-192 

Prasad, H. Garg, A.K. Prasad, Y. 1978 Labelling of adults of melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coqyillett with radioactive Indian J. Ent. 

phosphorus 

40(4) 437-439 

Prasad, H.H. Kochhar, V. Sethi, G.R. 1988 Simplified method for the collection of eggs of Oriental fruit fly Dacus 

dorsalis Hendel 

Indian J. Ent. 48(4) 521-524 

Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. 1980 Effect of gamma radiation on lipase activity in Dacus dorsalis Hendel Indian J. Ent. 42(4) 813-814 

Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. 1980 Effect of gamma radiation on peroxidase activity in Dacus dorsalis Hendel Indian J. Ent. 42(4) 811-812

Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. 1980 Effect of gamma radiation on the development of oriental fruitfly, Dacus 


Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. 1980 Effect of gamma radiation on the haemolymph protein content of Dacus 


Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. Singh, K.M. 1980 Effect of gamma radiation on the midgut of oriental fruitfly, Dacus dorsalis 

Hendel 

Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. 1981 Effect of gamma radiation on digestive enzymes of oriental fruit fly, Dacus 



Indian J. Ent. 42(3) 505-507 

Indian J. Ent. 42(4) 809-811 

Indian J. Forestry 42(3) 498-504 

J. Nuclear Agri. Bio. 10(1) 38331 

Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. 1987 Competitiveness of gamma sterilized males of Dacus dorsalis Hendel J. Nuclear Agri. Bio. 16(4) 223-226 

Prasad, H.H. Sethi, G.R. Kochhar, V. 1992 Adult emergence and egg hatchability of oriental fruit fly Dacus dorsalis 

(Bactrocera dorsalis) Hendel following irradiation of mature pupae 

Prasad, J.V. Srivastava, B.G. 1991 Nutritional value of different carbohydrates for Dacus dorsalis (Hendel) 

maggots 

Indian J. Ent. 54(3) 307-311 

Indian J. Ent. 53(4) 535-542 

Prasad, V.G. Bagel, H.N. 1978 Population dynamics of oriental fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis, by male annihilation Bulletin of Entomology 

technique 

19 103-105 

PrateepKumar, N. 1992 Indian J. Ent. 54(2) 139-149 

Prem, N. Dutta, O.P. Sundari, V. 1976 Breeding pumpkin for resistance to fruitfly Indian J. Ent. 8(1) 29-33 

Prem, N. Dutta, O.P. Sundari, V., 

Swamy, K.R.M. 

1976 Inheritance of resistance to fruit fly in pumpkin SABRAO J. 8(2) 117-119 

Pruthi, H.S. 1941 Report of the Imperial Entomologist Sci. Rep. Ag. Res. Inst., 

New Delhi 

Puspinder, J.R. Bangla, V. 1995 J. Insect Sci. 8(2) 140-143 

Radhakrishnan, C. 2001 Insecta: Tephritidae: Diptera 

Ragumoorthy, K.N. Selvaraj, K.N. Rao, P.V.S. 1998 Assessment of economic injury level for moringa fruitfly Gitona distigma Proc. 1st Nat. Symp. 

Pest Man. Hort. Crops 

Bangalore 

Rahman, O. Rahman, S. Agarwal, M.L. 1995 Guarding against oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis by the use of 

biotechnical control 

102-114 

137-139 

Indian Hort. 39(4) 13-15

Rahman, S Singh, S.P.N. Agarwal, M.L. 1993 Growth index of Dacus ( Bactrocera) zonatus Saunders on different hosts in J. Appl. Biol. 

North Bihar 

3(1-2) 97-99 

Rajamannar, N. 1962 Growth, orientation and feeding behaviour of the larvae of melon fly, Dacus 

cucurbitae on various plants 

Rajendran, P. Thayumanavan, 

B. 


Proc. Nat. Inst. Sci. 

India B 

28 133-142 

2000 Purification of an alpha-amylase inhibitor from seeds of little millet ( Panicum J. Pl. Biochem. Biotech. 

sumatrens) 

9(2) 89-94 

Rajpoot, S.K.S. Ali, S. Rizmi, S.M.A. 2002 Relative population and host preference of fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis on 

cucurbits 

Annals Pl. Prot. Sci. 10(1) 62-64 

Ram, S. Pathak, K.A. 1987 Occurrence and distribution of pest complex of some tropical and temperate Bull. Ent., New Delhi 

fruits in Manipur 

28(1) 43435 

Rana, J.S. Parkash, O.M. Verma, S.K. 1990 A note on relative susceptibility of some guava cultivars to fruit fly, Dacus 

zonatus (Saunder) 

Haryana J. Hort. Sci. 19(1-2) 131-133 

Ranganath, H.R. Veenakumari, K. 1996 Some new records of fruit flies (Diptera - Tephritidae) from the Andaman and Entomon 

Nicobar islands 

21(1) 95-97 

Ranganath, H.R. Veenakumari, K. Prasad, G.S. 2000 Carambola fruit fly : Can we prevent its entry into mainland India? Current Science 78(4) 373 

Ravindranath, K. Pillai, K.S. 1986 Control of fruit fly of bitter gourd using synthetic pyrethroids Entomon. 11(4) 269-272 

Reddy, A.V. 1997 Evaluation of certain new insecticides against cucurbit fruit fly (Dacus 

cucurbitae Coq ) on bittergourd 

Riberio, S. 1934 Some insects found associated with the bitter gourd ( Momordica charantia) 

in Calcutta 

Saikia, D.K. Dutta, S.K. 1997 Efficacy of some insecticides and plant products against fruit fly, Dacus tau 

(Walker) on ridge gourd, Luffa acutangula L 

Samalo, A.P. Satapathy, C.R. Behera, R.C., 

Samal, T. 

Samalo, A.P. Satapathy, C.R. Behera, R.C., 

Samal, T. 

Annals Agri. 18(2) 252-254 

J. Asiat. Soc. Beng. (N. 

S. ) 

J. Agri. Sci. Soc. NE 

India 

29(1) 89-93 

10(1) 132-135 

1995 Chemical control of the melon fruit fly: Dacus cucurbitae Current. Agri. Res. 8(3-4) 131-135 

1995 Chemical control of the melon fruit fly: Dacus latifrons Current Agri. Res. 8(3-4) 39-45 

Sandhu, G.S. Deol, I.S. Sohi, A.S. 1979 Incidence of fruit boring insects in guava cultivars J. Res. Punjab Agri. 

Uni. 

Sankaranarayanan, Jayaraj, S. 1975 Sterlity-inducing effects of antibiotics and sulphanilamide on the gourd 

R. 

fruitfly, Dacus cucurbitae 

19(3-4) 171-173 

Current Sci. 79(2) 129-136

Sarada, G. Maheshwari, T.U. Purushotha, K. 2001 Effect of trap colour, height and placement around trees in capture of mango J. App. Zool. Res. 

fruit flies 

12(2-3) 108-110 

Sareen, M.L. Pannu, H.K. 1984 Vitellogenesis in the fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillet Indian Zoologist 8(1-2) 13-17 

Sareen, M.L. Pannu, H.K. 1986 Female accessory glands in the fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett Indian Zoologist 7(1-2) 59-63 

Sarode, S.V. Lalitha, P. Krishnamuthy, P.N. 1981 Residues of fenthion in/ on musk -melon J. Ent. Res. 5(2) 179-181 

Satpathy, S. Rai, S. 2002 Luring ability of indigenous food baits for fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae 

(Coq) 


J. Ent. Res. 26(3) 249-252 

Saunders, W.W. 1841 Description of four new dipterous insects from central and northern India Trans. R. Ent. Soc. 3 60-61 

Saxena, D.K. 1968 Chemical control for the ber fruit fly, Indian J. Ent. 30(4) 295-298 

Saxena, S.K. Sinha, P. 1998 Effect of culture filtrate of three fungi in different combinations on the 

development of Dacus cucurbitae in vitro 

Saxena, S.K. Sinha, P. 1999 Effect of culture filtrates of three fungi in different combination on the 

development of the fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coq 

Sethi, G.R. Prasad, H.H. Garg, A.K. 1981 Biological halflife of radioactive phosphorus and sulphur in oriental fruit fly 

Dacus dorsalis 

Shah, A.H. Patel, R.C. 1976 Role of tulsi plant, Ocimum sanctum in control of mango fruit fly, Dacus 

correctus 

Indian Phytopath. 51(4) 361-362 

Annal. Pl. Prot. Sci. 7(1) 96-99 

J. Nuclear Agri. Biology 10(3) 96-97 

Current Si. 45 313-314 

Shah, A.H. Vora, V.J. 1975 Occurrence of Dacus correctus on mango and chiku in south Gujarat Zeitschrift Angewandte 

Ent. 

36(1) 76 

Shah, M.I. Batra, H.N. Renghen, P.L. 1948 Note on the biology of Dacus ferruguneus aAnd other fruit flies in NWFP Indian J. Ent. 10 249-266 

Sharma, P.L. Srivastava, S. Dhaliwal, H.S. 1973 Chemical control of peach fruit flies SABRAO J. 7(10) 20-21 

Sharma, S.K. Verma, A.K. 1989 Insect pest complex of apricot, Prunus armeniaca, in Himachal Pradesh Bull. Ent. New Delhi. 28(2) 115-123 

Sharma, V.K. 2003 A simple computer-aided device for monitoring activity of small mammals 

and insects 

Sharma, V.P. Lal, O.P. Rohidas, S.B., 

Pramanick, P.K. 

1998 Varietal resistance in ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) against the fruitfly 

Carypomyia vesuviana under field conditions 

Biological Rhythm Res. 34(1) 03-Dec 

J. Ent. Res. 22 61-67

Shivarkar, D.T. Dumbre, R.B. 1985 Bionomics and chemical control of melon fly J. Mahariashtra Agr. 

Uni. 

Shukla, R.P. Prasad, V.G. 1981 Relative susuceptibility of mango varieties to oriental fruitfly (Dacus dorsalis) 

and stone weevil (Sternochtus mangiferae) 


Symp. Recent 

Advances Fruit Dev., 

Ludhiana 

Shukla, R.P. Prasad, V.G. 1982 Ecological studies on oriental fruitfly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel Symp. Insect Ecol. & 

Res. Man., 

Mazaffarnagar 

10(3) 298-300 

Shukla, R.P. Prasad, V.G. Tandon, P.L. 1984 Effectiveness of different insecticides against oriental fruit fly, D dorsalis Indian J. Hort. 41(3-4) 307-309 

Shukla, R.P. Prasad, V.G. 1986 Population fluctuations of oriental fruit fly Dacus dorsalis in relation to hosts J. Maharashtra Agri. 

and abiotic factors 

Univ. 

Shukla, R.P. Srivastava, A.S. 1980 Anticholinesterase activity of some organophosphorus and carbamate 

insecticides in Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett 

Shukla, R.P. Srivastava, A.S. 1980 Distribution and kinetics of acetylcholinesterase in Dacus cucurbitae 

(Coquillet) 

Singh, G. 1990 Insect pests of mango Advances in 

Horticulture 

Singh, J. Kaur, J. Nayyar, S., 

Bhandari, M., Kad, 

G.L., Singh, J., 

Kaur, J., Nayyar, 

S. 

110 

72-73 

31(4) 273-275 

Indian J. Ent. 42(2) 223-225 

Current Sci. 42(1) 102-105 

3 1481- 

1500 

2001 Ultrasound mediated synthesis of a few naturally occurring compounds Indian J. Chem. Soc. B 40(5) 386-390 

Singh, J.P. 1970 Pests of guava and their control AUARA. 8-B(1) 19-24 

Singh, O.P. Gupta, J.P. Studies on mitotic and salivary chromosomes of Dacus cucurbitae Genetica 62(3) 217-221 

Singh, O.P. Teotia, T.P.S. 1970 A simple method of mass culturing melon fruit-fly, Dacus cucurbitae 

Coquillet 

Singh, R.P. Srivastava, B.G. 1985 Alcohol extract of neem (Azadirachta indica A Juss) seed oil as oviposition 

deterrent for Dacus cucurbitae(Coquillett) 

AURARA 32(1) 28-31 

Indian J. Ent. 45(4) 497-498 

Singh, S.P. 1993 Integrated pest management in horticultural crops Indian Hort. 38 25-40

Singh, S.V. Mishra, A. Bisen, R.S., Malik, 

Y.P., Mishra, A. 

2000 Host preference of red pumpkin beetle, Aulacophora foveicollis and melon 

fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae 

Sinha, P. 1996 Effect of culture filtrate of five different fungi on development of Dacus 

cucurbitae 


Indian J. Ent. 62(3) 242-246 

Flora Fauna Jhansi 2(1) 31-33 

Sinha, P. 1997 Effect of culture filtrates of fungi on mortality of larvae of Dacus cucurbitae J. Envi. Bio. 18(3) 245-248 

Sinha, R.P. Lall, B.S. 1978 On the biology and control of melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Pesticides 22-23 45-48 

Sivakumar, C.V. Perumal, R.S. Shanthakumar, T., 

Sommeijer, M.J. 

1975 Outbreaks and new records Pesticides 23(1) 26-28 

Srivastava, B.G. Anand, M. Pant, J.C. 1989 A chemically defined diet for Dacus dorsalis (Hendel) maggots J. Ent. Res. 13(1-2) 67-71 

Srivastava, B.G. Anand, M. 1995 An artificial diet and for substitution of imported yeast hydrolysate 

(enzymatic) in India for the mass rearing and nutritional studies of Dacus 

cucurbitae (Coquillett) adults 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, J.C. 1981 A chemically defined diet and axenic rearing method for maggots of Dacus 

cucurbitae 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, J.C. 1983 Amino acid requirements of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots under 


Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhry, H.S. 1978 Carbohydrate requirement of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots under 


Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhry, H.S. 1978 Effect of ascorbic acid on Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots in the 

artificial diet under asceptic conditions 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Choudhary, H.S. 1978 Vitamin B requirement of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots (Diptera: 

Tryptidae) 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhary, H.S. 1979 Effect of antibiotic in the artificial diet on bacterium and on the growth and 

deveopment of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhary, H.S. 1979 Effect of antimicrobial compounds in the artificial diet on the growth and 

development of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhary, H.S. 1979 Effect of physical texture of the artificial diet on growth and development of 

Dacus cucurbitae Coquillett maggots 

Indian J. Ent. 57(2) 158-160 

Indian J. Ent. Res. 43(2) 215-217 

Indian J. Ent. 45(4) 353-357 

Haryana Agri. Uni. J. 

Res. 

40(2) 150-155 

Indian J. Ent. 40(4) 384-387 

Oriental Insects 39(4) 308-318 

Bull. Ent. 20(1-2) 133-134 

Bull. Ent. 20(1-2) 128-130 

Bull. Ent. 20(1-2) 131-132

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhry, H.S. 1980 An artificial diet for Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots under aseptic 

conditions 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhry, H.S. 1980 Role of yeast in artificial diet of Dacus cucurbitae maggots under aseptic 

condition 

Srivastava, B.G. Pant, N.C. Chaudhry, H.S. 1985 Effect of some antimicrobials in the artificial diet on the growth and 

development of Dacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) maggots 


Indian J. Ent. 42(2) 314-316 

Egyptian J. Genetics 

Cyto. 

Srivastava, B.G. 1975 Nutritional behaviour of Dacus cucurbitae(Coquillett) PhD, Gorakhpur 

Sunandita Gupta, D. 2001 Testing of boric acid and protein hydrolysate bait mixture against fruit fly 

Bactrocera tau 

42(4) 627-634 

Indian J. Ent. 45(4) 384-386 

Indian J. Ent. 63(2) 125-129 

Tandon, P.L. Mathur, A.C. Krishnaiah, K. 1974 Chemical control of mango fruitfly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel Pesticides 6(1) 41579 

Tandon, P.L. Verghese, A. 1996 Pest management in mango IIHR Ann. Rep. 81-82 

Thakur, J.C. Khattra, A.S. Brar, K.S. 1994 Genetic variability and heritability for quantitative traits and fruit fly infestation J. Res. Punjab Agri. 

in bittergourd 

Uni. 

31(2) 161-166 

Thakur, J.C. Khattra, A.S. Brar, K.S. 1994 Relative efficacy of some insecticidal treatments against the gauva fruit fly Indian J. Hort. Sci. 64(6) 378-381 

Thakur, J.C. Khattra, A.S. Brar, K.S. 1994 Stability analysis for economic traits and infestation of melon fruit fly ( Dacus Indian J. Agri. Sci. 

cucurbitae) in bittergourd (Momordica charantia) 

64(6) 378-381 

Thakur, J.C. Khattra, A.S. Brar, K.S. 1996 Correlation studies between economic traits, fruit fly infestation and yield in Punjab Veg. Grower 

bittergourd 

31 37-40 

Thakur, J.N. Kkumar, A. 1988 Histology of normal and thiotepa treated testes of Dacus dorsalis J. Adv. Zool. 9(1) 59-66 

Thakur, J.N. Kumar, A. 1984 Effects of 3-indole acetic acid on the fertility of fruitfly, Dacus dorsalis Progressive Hort. 7(6) 197-199 

Thakur, J.N. Kumar, A. 1984 Effects of diflubenzuron and penfluron on the reproductive potential of the 

oriental fruit fly Dacus dorsalis: influence of age at the time of treatment on 

sterility 

Entomon 9(1) 19-24 

Thakur, J.N. Kumar, A. 1984 Mating competitiveness and fertility of thiotepa-sterlized flies Experientia 40(2) 220-223 

Thakur, J.N. Kumar, A. 1986 Effects of thiotepa concentration on the reproductive biology of juvenile and 

matured fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis 

J. Adv. Zool. 7(2) 75-78 

Thakur, J.N. Kumar, A. 1987 Effects of thiotepa on insemination capacity of males and successive Letters Nat. Acad. Sci. 

matings of females in fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel (Diptera: Tephritidae) India 

10(8) 293-295

Thakur, J.N. Kumar, A. 1988 Effects of thiotepa on the ovarian development of Oriental fruit fly, Dacus 

dorsalis 

Thakur, J.N. Kumar, A. 1988 Studies on correlation between testis size and sterility induced in Dacus 

dorsalis 

Thakur, J.N. Mann, S.K. 1982 Effect of indole-3-acetic acid on the histology of gonads and their 

development in Dacus dorsalis 

Thomas, C. Jacob, S. 1990 Bioefficiency and residue dynamics of carbofuran against the melon fruit fly 

Dacus cucurbitae infesting bittergourd Momordica charantia in Kerala 


J. Adv. Zool. 9(2) 137-143 

Letters Nat. Acad. Sci. 

India 

11(5) 159-161 

J. Ent. Res. 38(4) 490-492 

J. Ent. Res. 14(1) 30-34 

Thomas, P. Rahalkar, G.W. 1975 Disinfestations of fruit flies in mango by gamma irradiation Current Sci. 44(2) 775-776 

Tsuruta, K. White, I.M. 2001 Eleven new species of the genus Bactrocera Macquart (Diptera: Tephritidae) 

from Sri Lanka 

Entolological Sci. 4(1) 69-87 

Udayagiri, S. 1987 New records of natural enemies of the Malaysian fruit fly: Dacus latifrons J. Pl. Prot. Tropics 4(1) 69-70 

Vadivelu, S. Mohanasundaram, Rao, P.V.S., 

M. 

SubbaRao, P.V. 

Vaishampayan, 

S.M. 

1976 Record of parasites and predators on some South Indian crop pests Pesticides 37(1) 100-101 

Kapoor, K.N. Rawat, R.R. 1970 Note on assessment of losses to safflower (C. tinctorius) by capsule fly (A 

helianthi) 

Indian J. Agri. Sci. 40(1) 20-32 

Verghese, A. Jayanthi, P.D.K. 2001 A convenient polythene sachet trap for fruit flies, Bactrocera spp Insect Environment 6(4) 191 

Verma, G.D. Singh, I.P. 1976 Momordica cochinsinensis, a host of Dacus cucurbitae Pesticides. 6(3) 29-30 

Verma, G.D. Sinha, P.K. 1977 Bait-spray application for the control of melon fruit fly Proc. Bihar Acad. Agri. 

Sci. 

Verma, G.D. 1981 Studies on the comparitive morphology of the head capsules of Dacus 

cucurbitae Coq, Dacus zonatus S and Dacus ciliatus Loew 

11(8) 18 

Experientia 51(1) 21-31 

Verma, G.D. 1985 Thoracic morphology of Dacus cucurbitae (Trypetidae: Diptera) Bull. Ent. 26(1) 28-37 

Verma, G.S. Pandey, U.K. 1980 Chemical control of the pumpkin fruit-fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coq J. Nuclear Agri. 

Biology. 

Wadhi, S.R. Batra, H.N. 1984 Pests of tropical and subtropical fruit trees NC Pant - Entomology 

in India (ESI, New 

Delhi) 

67(4) 385-387 

227-260

Wadhwani, K. Khan, N.H. 1983 Effects of sublethal doses of toxic baits on the reproductive potential of 

Dacus cucurbitae Coq 

Yadav, G.S. Kathpal, T.S. 1983 Extent of Fenitrothion residues in bitter-gourd fruits J. Res. Punjab Agri. 

Univ. 

Yadav, G.S. Kathpal, T.S. Singh, G.;Gupta, 

S.P., Lakra, R.K. 

1986 Persistence of dimethoate and oxy-demeton methyl in jujube fruits and 

leaves 

Zaka ur Rab, M. 1978 Skeleto- muscular mechanism of the cephalo- pharyngeal skeleton of the 

mature larva of the melon fly, Dacus(Strumeta) cucurbitae Coquillett 

Zaka ur Rab, M. 1978 Studies on the tracheal system of the mature larva of the melon fly, Dacus 

(Strumeta) cucurbitae Coquillett 

Anon. 1973 Callantra minax (Enderlein) (Tephrytidae: Diptera), a new record of 

Ceratitinid fruitfly on orange fruits (Citrus reticulata) in India 


Indian J. agric. Sci. 53(11) 936-938 

53(6) 463-466 

Indian J. Agr. Sci. 56(2) 127-130 

J. Ent. Res. 28(2) 251-255 

Beitrage zur Ent. 28(2) 257-262 


Anon. 1975 Outbreaks and new records Pl. Prot. Bull., FAO 6(7) 113-114 

Anon. 1976 Co2: the small-sized pumpkin Indian Hort. 21(1) 7 

Anon. 1978 The infestation of the gall fruit-fly, Procecidochares utilis (Stone) on Crofton 

weed, Eupatorium adenophorum Sprengel in Kathmandu 

Indian J. Ent. 40(3) 337-339 

Anon. 1979 Impact of chemicals on ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lamk) Pesticides 13(3) 28-30 

Anon. 1981 Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) systematics of the Indian subcontinent 113 

Anon. 1983 Oviposition behaviour of ber fruitfly, Carpomyia vesuviana Costa and 

relationship between its incidence and ruggedness in fruits in Haryana 

Anon. 1983 The fruit flies of the tribe Euphrantini of Indonesia, New Guinea, and 

adjacent islands 

Anon. 1984 Calendar of losses due to ber fruit fly Carpomyia vesuviana in different 

Zizyphus spp. in Haryana 

Indian J. Ent. 45(1) 48-59 

Anon. 1984 Host plants of the fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) of the Indian sub-continent, J. Bombay Nat. Hist. 

exclusive of the sub-family Dacinae 

Soc. 

Anon. 1984 Studies on the field resistance of different jujube cultivars to the fruit fly 

Carpomyia vesuviana 

International J. ent. 25(2-3) 152-205 

Indian J. Ent. 46(3) 261-269 

81(1) 99-104 

Madras Agri. J. 71(6) 413-415

Anon. 1984 Varietal susceptibility of ber fruits to the damage of fruitfly (Carpomyia 

vesuviana Costa) 

Anon. 1985 Field screening of some ber cultivars for resistance to ber fruit fly, 

Carpomyia vesuviana Costa 

Anon. 1985 Seasonal fluctuations in incidence of ber fruitfly Carpomyia vesuviana under 

agro-climatic conditions of Hisar 


Bull. Ent. 25(2) 198-199 


Haryana Agri. Uni. J. 

Res. 

15(1) 42-50 

Anon. 1989 Bionomics of Zizyphus fruitfly, Carpomyia vesuviana, in Haryana Bull. Ent. 27(1) 13-27 

Anon. 1989 Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) as biocontrol agents of noxious weeds Bull. Ent. 30(2) 200-208 

Anon. 1989 Insecticidal control of fruit fly, Gitona sp, leaf caterpillar, Noorda blitealis 

Walk and aphid, Aphis craccivora Koch on annual moringa 

South Indian Hort. 37(2) 84-93 

Anon. 1989 Suitability of some mango hybrids for processing for export Acta-Hort. 231 776-781 

Anon. 1990 TosMIC in the preparation of spiroaectyls: synthesis of pheromone 

components of olive fruit fly 

Anon. 1991 Occurrence of some insects on orange plant Citrus reticulata in Darjeeling 

District, West Bengal 

Anon. 1991 TA-170: a new peach cultivar J. Res. Punjab Agri. 

Univ. 

Anon. 1992 A new species and nomenclatural status of some fruitflies (Diptera: 

Tephritidae) from India 

Tetrahedron letters 31(43) 6117- 

6218 

Env. & Ecol. 9(1) 108-111 

28(1) 153 

J. Insect Sci. 5(1) 20-22 

Anon. 1992 Bactrocera correcta on grapevine in India FAO Pl. Prot. Bull. 40(4) 162 

Anon. 1992 Chemical control of ber fruitfly Carpomyia vesuviana Costa Indian J. Pl. Prot. 20(1) 32-36 

Anon. 1992 Comparative resistance to fruit fly in bitter gourd Haryana J. Hort. Sci. 21(3-4) 285-288 

Anon. 1992 Control of moringa fruitfly Gitona sp, and leaf caterpillar Noorda blitealis with Indian J. Pl. Prot. 

insecticides and botanicals 

20(1) 61-65 

Anon. 1992 Effect of temperature and soil depth levels on pupae of jujube fruit fly 

Carpomyia vesuviana 

J. Insect Sci. 5(1) 80-81 

Anon. 1993 Evaluation of insecticides for the management of moringa fruit fly Madras Agri. J. 80(12) 698-699 

Anon. 1994 Bactrocera dorsalis A reported from Andaman Islands FAO Pl. Prot. Bull. 42(1-2) 71-72

Anon. 1994 Distribution Maps of Pests 

Anon. 1995 Additional records of insect pests of vegetables in the Andaman Islands 

(India) 

Anon. 1995 An investigation on the influence of methoprene and precoceneII on protein, 

glycogen and trehalose content of developing banana fruit fly, Zaprionus 

paravittiger (Godbole & Vaidya) 


J. Ent. Res. 19(3) 277-279 

J. Insect Sci. 8(2) 140-143 

Anon. 1995 Chemical control of ber fruitfly, Carpomyia vesuviana Annals Pl. Prot. Sci. 3(2) 164-190 

Anon. 1995 Distribution Maps of Pests 

Anon. 1995 Effect of preharvest spray of GA3 and Ethrel on storage life of mango cv 

Amrapalli 

Orissa J. Hort. 23(1-2) 112-118 

Anon. 1995 Notes on the dacine fruit flies of Andaman and Nicobar islands Raffles Bull. Zool. 43(1) 235-238 

Anon. 1995 Plant growth hormone kinetin delays ageing, prolongs the lifespan and slows Biochem. & Biophys. 

down development of the fruitfly Zaprionus paravittiger 

Res. Commun. 

Anon. 1995 Susceptibility of ber [Ziziphus mauritiana] cultivars to ber fruitfly, Carpomya 

vesuviana 

216(3) 1067- 

1071 

Bull. Ent. New Delhi 36(1-2) 123-124 

Anon. 1995 Weather conditions and population dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis J. Res. Birsa Ag. Uni. 7(2) 149-151 

Anon. 1996 Dose and efficacy period of methyl eugenol to attract mango fruitfly, 

Bactrocera dorsalis 

Anon. 1996 Hydrolytic activity of the banana fruit fly, Zaprionus paravittiger (Godble and 

Vaidya) under the influence of diflubenzuron 

Anon. 1996 Incidence of fruit borer (Meridarchis scyrodes) and fruit fly (Carpomyia 

vesuviana) on different varieties of ber 

Anon. 1996 Inheritance of resistance to melon fruitfly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) in bitter 

gourd (Momordica charantia) 

Gujarat Agri. Univ. Res. 

J. 

21(2) 

Pest Man. & Eco. Zool. 4(1-2) 101-104 

Adv. Agri. Res. India 6 13-18 


Anon. 1996 Insect pests of ber in North Karnataka South Indian Hort. 44(3-4) 113 

Anon. 1996 Predaceous spiders of mango pests and their extent of feeding Uttar Pradesh J. Zool. 16(3) 167-168 

Anon. 1996 Report of new fruit fly on guava on the Nicobar Islands, India Tropical Agri. 73(2) 165

Anon. 1996 Seasonal incidence and build-up of Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel on mango in J. Insect Sci. 

Punjab 

9(2) 

Anon. 1996 Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum): a confirmed host of the melon fly 



Insect Environment 2(1) 3 

Anon. 1997 Adaptive evolution and the footprints of history Current Sci. 72(12) 

Anon. 1997 Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) incidence on sand pear in relation to other 

larval hosts adjoining the sand pear orchards in Punjab 

Anon. 1997 Management of melon fly Bactrocera cucurbitae in cucurbits in South 

Andaman 

J. Insect Sci. 10(1) 34-37 

Insect Envi. 3(2) 32-33 

Anon. 1997 Papaya - a new host record of carambola fruit fly Bactrocera carambolae Insect Envi. 3(2) 37 

Anon. 1997 Studies on seasonal cyclicity of Bactrocera correctus Bezzi in mango and 

sapota orchards using methyl eugenol trap 

Gujarat Agri. Univ. Res. 

J. 

Anon. 1998 A carabid predator for guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) Insect Envi. 3(4) 113 

Anon. 1998 Bioefficacy of different insecticides against fruitfly Carpomyia vesuviana Gujarat Agri. Univ. Res. 

J. 

Anon. 1998 Combating male fruit flies using Patel fruit fly trap Insect Environment 4(2) 

Anon. 1998 Effect of gibberellic acid (GA3) on the protein, lipid and carbohydrate 

contents of banana fruit fly, Zaprionus paravittiger larvae 

Anon. 1998 Effect of some tropical hosts on development and survival of Bactrocera 


Anon. 1998 Efficacies of different bait combinations against oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera 

dorsalis 

Anon. 1998 Evaluation of insecticide baits for the control of fruit fly, Bactrocera tau 

(Walker) in the mid hills of Himachal Pradesh 

Anon. 1998 Hourly trap catch of the mango fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) using methyl 

eugenol bottle trap 

22(2) 

24(1) 101-103 

Insect Sci. & App. 18(2) 145-148 

Shashpa 5(2) 185-188 

J. Res. Birsa Ag. Un. 10(1) 

J. Hill Res. 11(2) 

Insect Envi. 4(2) 60 

Anon. 1998 Methyl eugenol attracts female mango fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel Insect Environment 4(3) 

Anon. 1998 Neem (Azadirachta indica) seed kernel extracts and azadirachtin as Phytoparasitica 26(3) 

oviposition deterrents against the melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) and the 

oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis)

Anon. 1998 Population dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera:Tephritidae) in Annals Ent. 

North Bihar 

16(1) 31-35 

Anon. 1999 Brassica caulorapa - a host of the melon fly Insect Environment 5(1) 01-Dec 

Anon. 1999 Development and survival of Bactrocera correcta on selected guava cultivars Pest Man. Hort. 

Ecosyst. 

Anon. 1999 Effect of Acorus calamus extracts on the longevity of Bactrocera cucurbitae Insect Environment 5(1) 27 

Anon. 1999 Effect of weather parameters on population dynamics of peach fruit fly 

Bactrocera zonata 


5(1) 

Entomon 24(1) 81-84 

Anon. 1999 Fruit flies associated with cucurbits in Himachal Pradesh J. Hill Res. 12(1) 52-54 

Anon. 1999 Intraspecific variations in two pest species of the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera Pakistan J. Zool. 

dorsalis complex 

31(4) 315-321 

Anon. 1999 New host of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coq) Insect Environment 5(3) 120 

Anon. 1999 Notes on the dacine fruit flies of Andaman and Nicobar islands - II Raffes Bull. Zool. 47(1) 221-224 

Anon. 1999 Olive (Olea europaea Wall) cultivation in Jammu and Kashmir Scientific Hort. 6 71-78 

Anon. 1999 Population suppression of Bactrocera dorsalis by Bactrocera zonata in North Shashpa 

Bihar 

6(2) 189-191 

Anon. 2000 Metabolites of some commercial cultivars of guava in relation to incidence of 

fruit fly 

Pest Man. Hort. 

Ecosyst. 

6(1) 61-62 

Anon. 2001 Effect of antibiotics and sulfa drugs on intracellular symbiotes of Bactrocera Shashpa 


8(2) 119-123 

Anon. 2001 Effect of plant extracts spray on fruitfly transmission of cucumber mosaic 

virus 

Anon. 2001 Investigations on constituents of Acorus calamus root oil as attractants to 

melonfly, Bactrocera cucurbitae and oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis 

Anon. 2001 Seasonal incidence and population fluctuation of fruit flies in mango and 

guava 

J. Phytological Res. 14(2) 207-208 

Indian J. Ent. 63(3) 340-344 

Indian J. Ent. 63(3) 272-276 

Anon. 2002 BS75-1 (Reg No INGR 01017) ber Indian J. Genetics Plant 

Breed. 

62(1) 95

Anon. 2002 BS75-3 (Reg No INGR 01018) ber Indian J. Genetics Plant 

Breed. 


62(1) 95 

Anon. 2002 Comparative efficacy of selected insecticides against pests of watermelon Pesticides Res. J. 14(1) 57-62 

Anon. 2002 Effect of sowing date on the incidence of fruit fly, Bactrocera sp on pumpkin Insect Envi. 8(2) 92-93 

Anon. 2002 Evaluation of guava accessions for resistance to the fruit fly, Bactrocera 

dorsalis (Hendel) in relation to certain fruit morphological characters 

Anon. 2002 Factors influencing infestation of fruit-fly (Carpomyia vesuviana) in ndian 

jujube (Zizyphus mauritiana) 

Pest Man. Hort. 

Ecosyst. 

8(1) 27-32 


Anon. 2002 Insect pest status on summer vegetables in Malnad hilly tracts Karnataka J. Agri. Sci. 15(1) 156-157 

Anon. 2002 Plant protection research in Arunachal Pradesh Resource Man. 

Perspect. Arunachal 

Ag. 

Anon. 2002 Reaction of cucumber genotypes to fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae in 

Himachal Pradesh 

Insect Environment 8(1) 

Anon. 2002 Screening of different varieties of water melon against melon fruit fly JNKVV Res. J. 35(1-2) 91-92 

Anon. 2002 Screening of muskmelon germplasms/lines for the resistance against fruit 

flies, Bactrocera dorsalis 

301-325 

Annals of Pl. Prot. Sci. 10(1) 153 

Anon. 2003 Efficacy of insecticides for controlling ber fruit fly Annals of Pl. Prot. Sci. 11(1) 152-153 

Anon. 2003 Heterosis for yield and yield related attributes in muskmelon (Cucumis melo Indian J. Genetics Plant 

L) 

Breed. 

Anon. 2003 Influence of four plant growth regulators on development of the melon fruit 

fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) 

63(1) 91-92 

Insect Sci. & App. 23(2) 121-125 

Anon. 2003 Molecular characterization of isolates of Bacillus thuringiensis from Western J. Pl. Prot. 

Ghats 

30(1) Jul-13 

Anon. 2003 Residue studies and bio-efficacy of lambda-cyhalothrin and beta-cyfluthrin in Pesticide Res. J. 

ber (Zizyphus mauritiana) fruits 

15(1) 26-27 

Anon. 2003 Seasonal incidence of insect pests associated with mango crop Annals Pl. Prot. Sci. 11(1) 159-160

“Key Informant Survey” of Production, Value, Losses and ... - DfID

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?