Ph.D. Thesis - Pakistan Research Repository

Ph.D. Thesis

ECO-BIOLOGY OF MANGO FRUIT FLIES OF

BACTROCERA SPECIES (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE)

AND SUCEPTIBILITY OF SOME MANGO VARIETIES

OF SINDH AGAINST FRUIT FLIES

THESIS SUBMITTED TOWARDS THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SINDH, FOR THE

AWARD OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DEGREE IN ZOOLOGY

AIMAN AMUR

Department of Zoology

University of Sindh, Jamshoro Pakistan

2017

II

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the work present in this thesis entitled “ECO-BIOLOGY

OF MANGO FRUIT FLIES OF BACTROCERA SPECIES (DIPTERA:

TEPHRITIDAE) AND SUCEPTIBILITY OF SOME MANGO VARIETIES

OF SINDH AGAINST FRUIT FLIES” has been carried out by Ms. Aiman

under our supervision. The work is genuine, original and, in our opinion, suitable

for submission to the University of Sindh for the award of degree of Ph.D. in

Zoology.

SUPERVISOR

________________________

Dr. Nasreen Memon

Professor Department of Zoology


CO-SUPERVISOR

________________________

Dr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi

Professor at Department of Fresh water


CO-SUPERVISOR

________________________

Dr. Mansoor Ali Shah

Assistant Professor at Department of zoology


III

DEDICATION

This Dissertation is dedicated to my beloved deceased

grandparents “HAJI HUSSAIN BUX and HAJANI

RAHEEMA” and my loving parents. Who always

desired and prayed for my uprightness and success. It is

regards for their efforts and love.

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel most humble and to show my gratitude towards ALMIGHTY ALLAH, the most

Beneficent and the most Merciful; ALLAH showed me the path of courage, potential

and self-determination; which enabled me to accomplish this significant project in my

life.

I am grateful to be under the influence of an immense personality with her guidance

and supervision, my esteemed supervisor Professor Dr. Nasreen Memon, chairperson

department of Zoology, has embellished my personality, adorned my qualities and

appraised my talent. She will always remain close to my heart and forever ever be

under her a mother like figure to me. I am also express my sincere acknowledgements

to my respectable co-supervisors for moral support, Prof. Dr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi

and 2nd co-supervisor Assist. .Pro. Dr. Mansoor Ali Shah for technical guidance

during laboratory work, especially for his help in ANOVA analysis of data.

Credit is also due to from my teachers especially to “the deceased Ameer Zadi”

(teacher at primary level) and Sir Muhammad Musa Memon (teacher at middle

school) who encouraged me during my earlier studies.

I offer my best regards to the institutes of, IARSCS, Center of Excellence and

Physics department university of Sindh Jamshoro.

I am deeply thankful to all my lab fellows Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Memon, Dr.

Bhojumal, Dr. Ismail Memon, Mr. Attaullah Ansari, Mr. Dildar Ali Solangi, Mr.

Javed Ali Khero, Mr. Juma Khan Turuk, Mr. Shair Muhammad Keehar, Sadaf

Qureshi, Zoya Memon, Nabeela Kousar, Aneeta Sahito, Mahpara Pirzda, Siama

Pathan, Tahira Pechuhu, Shakira Mushitaq and Kamal Abro, who helped me during

the collection of mango fruit, fruit fly and regarding to the technical studies of my

projects i.e. computer techniques and co-operation during research studies. I am glad

to mention the efforts by laboratory assistant Akhtar Zaman khuro, Syed Muhammad

Hashim Shah and peon Akhtar Memon, who provided me with experimental material

and infested mangoes from different areas of sindh.

V

This page of acknowledgments will never be completed if I do not mention warmest

thanks to all my friend Rabail Maher who helped me during the collection of mango

fruit and fruit fly from lower Sindh). Highly thankful to District agriculture officer of

Naushahro feroze Mr. Abdullah kallo, who provided me information regarding the

varieties of mango, infestation and collection of fruit flies from upper Sindh. I must

also acknowledge to Dr. Muhammad Hassan Panwer’s research garden, Hyderabad

and his gardeners for providing informative suggestion about fruit flies and infested

mangoes. My Warmest regards go to my friend Asma Chanar for being my

companion throughout my research studies and a helping hand during the Chemical

studies. I’m highly thankful for moral support of my colleagues and friend Fozia

Nagiraj. I am grateful to my cousin Baqir Ali Amur who has helped throughout the

process of admission. I’m deeply thankful to Kifah Memon, my brother Ali

Muhammad Amur and my uncle Faiz Muhammad Amur for their keen interest which

has helped me in my thesis’s write up and accomplish the last steps of my Ph.D.

work.

With a devoted heart I pay my best regards to my family members; my father

G.ABBAS Amur and mother Mehrbano Amur for their prayers, encouragement and

blind trust during my studies, my elder brother Profe. Dr. Khuda Bux Amur for his

moral and financial support and to my caring and beloved sister Ruqia Amur for here

help with my study expenditure of my research. To my younger sisters and my

brothers ( Kaz bano Amur, Shahnaz Fatima Amur, Eng. Mudasir Ali Amur and Eng.

Mutahar Ali Amur who always guided me, encouraged me and supported me

throughout this hectic period of my life.

VI

LIST OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS

1- Aiman Amur, Nasreen Memon, Mansoor Ali Shah and Bhojoo Mal

“BIOLOGY OF MANGO FRUIT FLY BACTROCERA DORSALIS

(HENDLE) (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE) ON TWO VARIETIES OF

MANGO (LAL BAD SHAH AND SONARO VARIETIES) IN

LABORATORY. Pak.J.Entomolo.31 (2):149-145, 2016.

2- Aiman Amur, Nasreen Memon, Mansoor Ali Shah, Attaullah Ansari and

Bhojo Mal “BIOLOGY AND MORPHOMETRIC OF DIFFERENT LIFE

STAGES OF ORIENTAL FRUIT FLY (BACTROCERA DORSALIS

HENDLE) (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE) ON THREE MANGO VARIETIES

OF SINDH PAKISTAN” Pak. J. APS 27(5): 2017 : 1711-1718

VII

ABSTRACT

During present study effect of environmental factors, Viz. biotic (host) and abiotic

factors (weather parameters) on the richness and inhabitants of fruit fly.The major pest

of mango is Bactrocera dorsalis and fruit flies, were observed in two localities of Sindh,

such as Mirpur khas and Naushahro feroze, during 2014-2015. Peek incidence of fruit

fly activity was observed during month of July (254.52), population of fruit fly decline

during fourth week of September (56.62). correlation studies between occurrence and

climate parameters, showed important positive relationship with average temperature,

rainfall weak negative correlation during 2014 and positive relationship during 2015,

Humidity show weak negative correlation and Wind velocity positively correlation with

population of fruit flies in both localities. Present studies on biology of Bactrocera

dorsalis revealed that the freshly laid eggs were silver, rice formed slightly bent

lengthened tapering at anterior besides posterior end. The mean length and breadth of the

egg were found to be (0.54±0.11mm and 0.19±0.08mm).The 1st instar and 2nd instar

measured (2.6±0.75mm and 0.55±5.88mm) in length individually, and (0.27±0.82mm

and 2.34±0.78mm) in breadth respectively. The third instar was very mobile and

measured (7.68±0.72mm in length 3.58±0.25mm) in breadth. The pupae measured

(4.47±0.64mm in length 2.69±0.16mm and 2.69±0.16mm) in breadth. The length and

breadth of male was (8.65±0.58mm and 10.34±1.18mm), whereas, the female measured

(9.79±0.53mm in length and 13.98±0.27mm) in breadth. The time of egg incubation, and

the (larval, pre-pupal and pupal periods) were (1.61±0.51, 9.97±2.25, 8.52±0.88) days,

respectively. Pre-oviposition and oviposition periods ranged from 13-14 and 20-22 days.

Fecundity varied from 14-15eggs, while egg hatching was 77.31±1.97. Sex ratio (Male:

Female) was 1.17± 2.07. Longevity of adults was not significantly different (P>0.05) in

varieties. The susceptibility of four economically significant mango varieties (Chunsa,

Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro) in Sindh Pakistan to the attack by Bactrocera dorsalis

was assessed through a consumption of mango pulp by larvae of Bactrocera dorsalis as

well as some nutritional quality parameters of mango. Vulnerability was checked by

including and relating the number of puparia recovered from different varieties. Chunsa

was found to be the most susceptible, followed by Beganpali, Sindhri and Sonaro

variety. The emergence of flies were not significant different (P>0.00) in all varieties.

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE ................................................................................................. II

DEDICATION ............................................................................................... III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................. IV

LIST OF RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS ......................................................... VI

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................. VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... VIII

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................... XI

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... XIII

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... XVII

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1

1.1 MOTIVATION ...................................................................................... 1

1.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE THESIS ..................................................... 2

1.3 INTRODUCTION OF MANGO ............................................................. 2

1.3.1 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUES OF MANGO .................... 3

1.3.2 VARIETIES OF PAKISTAN ....................................................... 3

1.3.3 USES OF MANGO ...................................................................... 4

1. 3.4 FRUIT FLIES AS PEST OF MANGO ........................................... 4

1.3.5 FRUIT FLIES HOST SPECIFICATION ....................................... 5

1.3.6 ORIENTAL FRUIT FLY BACTROCERA DORSALIS (HENDEL) .. 6

1. 3.7 ECOLOGY (INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT ON PEST) ........ 7

1.3.8 BIOLOGY OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA DORSALIS ............. 8

1.3.9 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF MANGO VARIETIES ............................ 10

1.3.10 ATTRACTANT OF FRUIT FLY TOWARDS THE MANGO

ORCHARDS ............................................................................. 11

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ........................................................... 13

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW/BACKGROUND ............................ 15

2.1 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF MANGO ........................................... 15

2.2 ECOLOGY .......................................................................................... 16

2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA SPECIES ............. 17

2.4 BIOLOGY ........................................................................................... 18

IX

2.5 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF MANGO VARIETIES ...................................... 21

2.6 SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................. 26

3.1 ECOLOGY .......................................................................................... 26

3.1.1 AREA OF STUDY ........................................................................ 26

3.1.2 STRUCTURE OF TRAP ............................................................ 27

3.1.2.1 TRAP A ........................................................................ 27

3.1.2.2 TRAP B ......................................................................... 27

3.1.3 FIELD TRAPPING OF FLIES .................................................... 28

3.1.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ....................................................... 29

3.2 BIOLOGY (COLLECTION AND REARING OF PEST ........................ 29

3.3 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF FOUR MANGO VARIETIES AGAINST FRUIT

FLIES AT RIPENING STAGE OF MANGO ........................................ 32

3.3.1 FRUIT COLLECTION AND INCUBATION OF PEST ............... 32

3.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF FRUIT QUALITY PARAMETERS .............. 36

3.3.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION ............................... 43

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION.............................................. 44

4.1 ECOLOGY .......................................................................................... 44

4.1.1 FIELD OBSERVATION ............................................................ 44

4.1.2 FIELD TRAPPING OF FRUIT FLIES (BACTROCERA SPECIES) ........ 49

4.1.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ADULT POPULATION OF BACTROCERA

DORSALIS DURING WHOLE STUDY PERIOD, 20014 AND 2015. ..... 73

4.2 BIOLOGY ........................................................................................... 75

4.2.1 LIFE CYCLE OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS ....................................... 75

4.2.2 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT LIFE

STAGES .................................................................................... 81

4.3.3 THE SURVIVAL % OF DIFFERENT LIFE STAGES OF

BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON FOUR VARIETIES OF MANGO

.................................................................................................. 88

4.3.2 BIO- CHEMICAL PARAMETERS ............................................. 96

4.4 SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 119

4.5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 120

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS ..................... 134

5.1 CONCLUSION .................................................................................. 134

X

5.2 SUGGESTIONS ................................................................................ 136

5.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS .................................................................... 137

5.4 SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 138

REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 140

XI

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 4-1 SHOWS THE LOCALITY OF MANGO ORCHARDS AND NEIGHBORING CROP

IN SURROUNDINGS OF STUDY AREA .................................................................. 48

TABLE 4-2 SHOWS THE POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN MIRPURKHAS 2014 ..... 55

TABLE 4-3 TOTAL NUMBER OF ADULT FLIES IN BOTH LOCALITIES DURING 2014 AND

2015 ............................................................................................................................... 55

TABLE 4-4 MONTH WISE MEAN POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES ...................... 56

TABLE 4-5 SHOWS YEARLY MEAN POPULATION OF ADULT FLIES IN BOTH YEARS .. 56

TABLE 4-6 LOCALITY WISE MEAN POPULATION.................................................................. 57

TABLE 4-7 MONTH WISE MEAN POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES AMONG

BOTH LOCALITIES .................................................................................................... 57

TABLE 4-8 TOTAL CATCHES OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS AND OTHER BACTROCERA

SPECIES IN BOTH LOCALITIES ............................................................................. 58

TABLE 4-9 SHOWS THE METROLOGICAL OBSERVATION IN MIRPUR KHAS DURING

2014-2015 ..................................................................................................................... 59

TABLE 4-10 SHOWS THE METROLOGICAL OBSERVATION IN NAUSHAHRO FEROZE

DURING 2014-2015 ..................................................................................................... 60

TABLE 4-11 SHOWING PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN

POPULATIONS OF BACTROCERA SPECIES AND WEATHER PARAMETERS IN

MIRPUR KHAS DURING JUNE-SEPT 2014 ........................................................... . 67

TABLE 3-12 SHOWING PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN POPULATION

OF BACTROCERA SPECIES AND WEATHER PARAMETERS IN MIRPUR KHAS

DURING JUNE-SEPT 2015 ......................................................................................... 70

TABLE 4-13 SHOWING PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN POPULATION

OF BACTROCERA SPECIES AND WEATHER PARAMETERS IN NAUSHAHRO

FEROZE DURING JUNE-SEPT 2014 .................................................................. …...73

TABLE 4-14 SHOWING PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT BETWEEN

POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES AND WEATHER PARAMETERS IN

NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUNE-SEPT 2015. ............................................. 76

TABLE 4-15 LIFE CYCLE OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS OBSERVED ON DIFFERENT FOUR

VARIETIES OF MANGO ............................................................................................ 80

TABLE 4-16 SHOWING THE TIME PERIOD OF DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES OF

BACTROCERA DORSALIS........................................................................................... 88

TABLE 4-17 SHOWS THE MORPHOMETRIC CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT LIFE

STAGES OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS .................................................................... 88

TABLE 4-18 SURVIVAL % OF DIFFERENT LIFE STAGES OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON

CHUNSA VARIETY .................................................................................................... 89

XII


SINDHRI VARIETY .................................................................................................... 89


BEGANPALI VARIETY .............................................................................................. 90


SONORA VARIETY .................................................................................................... 90

TABLE 4-22 COMPARISON OF SURVIVAL RATE OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON FOUR

VARIETIES ................................................................................................................. 91

TABLE 4-23 SHOWING THE DIFFERENT PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MANGO ..... 93

TABLE 4-24 SHOWING THE LENGTH OF MANGO VARIETIES ............................................... 94

TABLE 4-25 SHOWING THE PEEL THICKNESS OF MANGO VARIETIES .............................. 95

TABLE 4-26 SHOWING THE TOTAL SUGAR (%) IN THE MANGO VARIETIES .................... 97

TABLE 4-27 SHOWING THE REDUCING SUGAR (%) IN MANGO VARIETIES…… .............. 98

TABLE 4-28 SHOWING THE NON-REDUCING SUGAR (%) IN THE MANGO......................... 99

TABLE 4-29 SHOWING THE ACIDITY (%) OF MANGO VARIETIES ..................................... 100

TABLE 4-30 SHOWING THE pH OF THE MANGO VARIETIES ............................................... 101

TABLE 4-31 SHOWING THE ASH CONTENT (%) OF THE MANGO VARIETIES ................. 105

TABLE 4-32 SHOWING THE MOISTURE CONTENT (%) OF THE MANGO VARIETIES ..... 103

TABLE 4-33 SHOWING THE CONSUMPTION OF MANGO PULP OF CHUNSA VARIETY BY

BACTROCERA DORSALIS (2014 TO 2016) .............................................................. 105

TABLE 4-34 SHOWING THE CONSUMPTION OF MANGO PULP OF SINDHRI VARIETY BY

BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE FROM 2014 TO 2016 ................................... 106

TABLE 4-34 SHOWING THE CONSUMPTION OF MANGO OF PULP BEGANPALI VARIETY

BY BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE (2014 TO 2016) ...................................... 107

TABLE 4-35 SHOWING THE CONSUMPTION OF MANGO OF PULP SONARO VARIETY BY

BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE (2014 TO 2016)……… ................................. 108

TABLE 4-36 SHOWING THE YEARLY CONSUMPTION OF MANGO PULP ON FOUR

VARIETIES OF MANGO, BY BACTROCERA DORSALIS ..................................... 109

TABLE 4-37 SHOWING THE CONSUMPTION OF PULP BY EACH LARVAL INSTAR ON FOUR

VARIETIES (EACH INSTAR LEVEL PROVIDE 500GMS MANGO WEIGHT AND 500

LARVAL INSTARS ON EACH VARIETY) (2014-2016) ..................................................... 109

TABLE 4-38 SHOWING THE COMPARATIVE OF CONSUMPTION AND BIO-INGREDIENTS

OF THE VARIETIES ................................................................................................ .112

TABLE 4-39 PEARSON CO-RELATION OF CONSUMPTION OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS

MANGO VARIETIES WITH THE CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FROM

JUNE–OCTOBER 2014-2016. ................................................................................... 113

TABLE 4-40 SHOWS THE SURVIVAL OF PUPAL RECOVERY IN ALL VARIETIES DURING

2014-2016 ................................................................................................................... 117

XIII

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3-1: MAP OF SINDH PROVINCE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF MIRPUR

KHAS AND NAUSHAHRO FEROZE ......................................................... 26

FIGURE 3-2: TRAP A ..................................................................................................... 27

FIGURE 3-3: TRAP ........................................................................................................ 28

FIGURE 3.4: 3.5: THE COLLECTING TRAPS AND FLIES IN BOX .............................. 29

FIGURE 3-6: COLLECTED INFESTED MANGOES ....................................................... 30

FIGURE 3-7: MANGOES TRANSFER IN CAGES ........................................................... 30

FIGURE 3-8 AFTER TWO DAYS MANGOES ................................................................ 31

FIGURE 3-9: PUPAE IN CHIMNEYS ............................................................................ 31

FIGURE 3-10: EMERGED FLIES TRANSFERRED IN CAGES ......................................... 31

FIGURE 3-11: EMERGED FLIES SURVIVE ON 10 % SUCROSE SOLUTION .................. 31

FIGURE 3-12: 3.14 SHOWS THE INFESTED AND FRESH MANGOES OF GIVEN

VARIETIES …. .......................................................................................... 32

FIGURE 3-15: FRESH MANGO ........................................................................................ 34

FIGURE 3-16: CUT THE FRESH ...................................................................................... 34

FIGURE 3-17: WEIGH MANGO ....................................................................................... 34

FIGURE 3-18: PIECES OF ALL VARIETIES .................................................................... 34

FIGURE 3-19: COLLECTED LARVAE FROM INFESTED MANGOES ............................ 34

FIGURE 3-20: CULTURE IN CHIMNEYS.......................................................................... 34

FIGURE 3-21: AFTER CONSUMPTION MANGO PIECE ................................................... 34

FIGURE 3-22: COLLECTION OF PUPARIA ....................................................................... 35

FIGURE 3-23: SPRAY OF WATER IN CAGES .................................................................. 35

FIGURE 3-24: PROVIDE FOOD FOR FLIES ...................................................................... 36

FIGURE 3-25: COLLECTING FLIES ................................................................................. 36

FIGURE 3-26: COLLECTED FLIES IN CAGES ................................................................. 36

FIGURE 3-27: RIPENED MANGOES ................................................................................. 37

FIGURE 3-28: CHECKED FRUIT ....................................................................................... 37

FIGURE 3-29: SCREW GAUGE ......................................................................................... 37

FIGURE 3-30: PEEL OF MANGO ....................................................................................... 37

FIGURE 3-30: MANGOES OF FOUR VARIETIES .............................................................. 39

XIV

FIGURE 3-31: 5GMS MANGO PULP ................................................................................. 39

FIGURE 3-32: BLENDER (SQUEEZED JUICE) ............................................................... 39

FIGURE 3-33: MANGO SOLUTION ................................................................................. 40

FIGURE 3-34: MANGO SOLUTION FOR ACIDITY ANALYSIS ...................................... 40

FIGURE 3-35: pH. METER ............................................................................................... 41

FIGURE 3-36: ELECTRONIC OVEN MACHINE ............................................................... 41

FIGURE 3-37: SAMPLES .................................................................................................... 42

FIGURE 3-38: CRUCIBLES ................................................................................................ 42

FIGURE 3-39: MUFFLE FURNACE MACHINE .................................................................. 46

FIGURE 4-40: THE FIELD OBSERVATION ..................................................................... 47

FIGURE 4-41: THE TOP TEN VARIETIES OF THE WORLD (IMAGES.COM) ................. 50

FIGURE 4-42: SHOWS THE POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA SPECIES PER

TRAP DURING 2014 IN MIRPUR KHAS ................................................... 51


TRAP IN MIRPUR KHAS DURING 2015 ................................................... 53


TRAP DURING 2014 IN OF NAUSHAHRO FEROZE ................................ 54


TRAP DURING 2015 IN OF NAUSHAHRO FEROZE ................................ 55

FIGURE 4-46: SHOWS THE MONTH WISE POPULATION IN MIRPUR KHAS .............................. 55

FIGURE 4-47: SHOWS THE MONTH WISE POPULATION IN NAUSHAHRO FEROZE ............... 62

FIGURE 4-48: SHOWING THE (MODERATE) POSITIVELY CO-RELATION BETWEEN

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN

MIRPUR KHAS DURING JUN-SEP 2014 62

FIGURE 4-49:SHOWING THE WEAK POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGES

RAINFALL AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN MIRPUR

KHAS DURING JUN-SEPT 2014 63

FIGURE 4-50: SHOWS WEAK NEGATIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE

HUMIDITY AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN MIRPUR

KHAS DURING JUN-SEPT 2014. 63

FIGURE 4-51: SHOWS STRONG POSITIVE CORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE WIND

AND POPULATION IN MIRPUR KHAS DURING JUN-SEPT 2014. 65

FIGURE 4-52:SHOWING THE STRONG POSITIVELY CO-RELATION BETWEEN

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA

SPECIES IN MIRPUR KHAS DURING JUN-SEPT 2015 65

FIGURE 4-53:SHOWING THE (MODERATE) POSITIVELY CO-RELATION BETWEEN

AVERAGE RAIN FALL AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES

IN MIRPUR KHAS DURING JUN-SEPT 2015 66

XV

FIGURE 4-54: SHOWING THE WEAK POSITIVELY CO-RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE

HUMIDITY AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN MIRPUR

KHAS DURING JUN-SEPT 2015 66

FIGURE 4-55: SHOWING THE MODERATE POSITIVELY CO-RELATION BETWEEN

AVERAGE WIND VELOCITY AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA

SPECIES IN MIRPUR KHAS DURING JUN-SEPT 2015 68

FIGURE 4-56: SHOWING THE MODERATE POSITIVELY CO-RELATION BETWEEN

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES

IN NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2014. 68

FIGURE 4-57: SHOWING THE WEAK NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGES

RAINFALL AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN

NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2014 69

FIGURE 4-58: SHOWING THE WEAK NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE

HUMIDITY AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN


FIGURE 4-59: SHOWING THE MODERATE NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN

AVERAGE WIND VELOCITY AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA

SPECIES IN NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2014 69

FIGURE 4-60: SHOWING THE STRONG POSITIVELY CO-RELATION BETWEEN

AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA

SPECIES IN NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2015 71

FIGURE 4-61: SHOWING THE STRONG POSITIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE

RAINFALL AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN

NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2015. 71

FIGURE 4-62: SHOWING THE WEAK NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE

HUMIDITY AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN

NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2015. 72

FIGURE 4-63: SHOWING THE MODERATE POSITIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN WIND

VELOCITY AND POPULATION OF BACTROCERA SPECIES IN


FIGURE 4-64: SHOWS THE LIFE CYCLE OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS (BIOLOGY)…. ............... 75

FIGURE 4-65: EGG ........................................................................................................... 81

FIGURE 4-66: 1ST INSTAR ............................................................................................... 82

FIGURE 4-67: 2ND INSTAR ............................................................................................... 83

FIGURE 4-68: 3RD INSTAR LARVAE ............................................................................... 84

FIGURE 4-69: PRE-PUPAL ............................................................................................... 85

FIGURE 4-70: PUPAE....................................................................................................... 86

FIGURE 4-71: MALE ........................................................................................................ 87

FIGURE 4-72: FEMALE.................................................................................................... 87

FIGURE 4-73: SHOWING THE SURVIVAL (%) OF DIFFERENT LIFE STAGES OF

BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON FOUR MANGO .......................................... 91

FIGURE 4-74: SHOWS THE BIO- INGREDIENTS OF MANGO FRUIT IN FOUR

VARIETIES OF MANGO [T.S= TOTAL SUGAR, N.R.S= NONE REDUCING

XVI

SUGAR, R.S= REDUCING SUGAR, M=MOISTURE, PH. =POWER OF

HYDROGEN] .......................................................................................... 104

FIGURE 4-75: SHOWING THE LARVAL INSTARS CONSUMPTION ON FOUR

VARIETIES ............................................................................................. 111

FIGURE 4-76: SHOWING THE POSITIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN SUGAR AND

CONSUMPTION BY BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE DURING JUN-

SEPT 2014- 2016 ...................................................................................... 113

FIGURE 4-77: SHOWING THE NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN ACIDITY AND


SEPT 2014-2016 ....................................................................................... 114

FIGURE 4-78: SHOWING THE NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN MOISTURE AND


SEPT 2014-2016 ....................................................................................... 114

FIGURE 4-79: SHOWING THE NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN ASH AND


SEPT 2014-2016 ....................................................................................... 115

FIGURE 4-80: SHOWING THE POSITIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN PH AND


SEPT 2014-2016……………. .................................................................... 115

FIGURE 4-81: PUPAL RECOVERY FROM FOUR VARIETIES OF MANGO ................... 116

FIGURE 4-82: THE EMERGENCE CURVE DATA ON FOUR VARIETIES OF

MANGO……….. ...................................................................................... 118

FIGURE 4-83: THE SURVIVAL % OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON DIFFERENT

VARIETIES WITHIN 2 MONTHS (JUN-AUGUST) .................................. 118

XVII

ABBREVIATIONS

AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists

ANOVA Analysis of variance

HCL Hydrochloric Acid.

N HCL Natural hydrochloric Acid

M Molarity

pH. Power of Hydrogen

SPSS Statically Package for social sciences

IARCSCS Institute of Advance research studies of chemical science

SBI Sindh Board of Investment

NaoH Sodium Hydroxide

IPM Integrate Pest Management

___________________________________________________________1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter we provide motivation and contributions of this thesis and at the

end of the chapter, we present the structure of the rest of the thesis. This chapter

of thesis explain complete introduction of mango and fruit fly pest. Mango is the

king of fruit, which is undermined by some insect pest due to the physical and

chemical characteristics of host (mango) and by the influence of environmental

factors.

1.1 MOTIVATION

Main scenario of motivation is that which varieties are susceptible against

Bactrocera species because of that, mango fruit of Sindh could not be export in

international market. This research work will further helpful for researchers for

other varieties, boosts the interest in research and gives a controlling impressive

findings in research work especially concerned with mango and fruit flies. The

Mango is one of the most favorite and economically important fruit in Pakistan.

This fruit is very sweet and delicious in taste. Unfortunately this king of fruits is

in distressing situation due to some pests.This research work will provide great

motivation for betterment of fruit quality and controlling strategies of fruit fly,

which is most horrible pest of fruits, which survive in mangoes in very

astonishing way. Such as fruit fly survive in fields and their progeny survive in

pulp of fruit. There is lot of species of fruit flies is alarming for mango fruit in

Sindh. Developmental stages of this tiny pest is horrible for pulp of fruit. There

are so many reasons that attracts the fruit fly towards fruits. Many varieties are

more susceptible to Bactrocera species. Their ecological effects influence on the

development and growth of pest and host. This work motivate for such natural

finding and horrors.

___________________________________________________________2

1.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE THESIS

In currant alarming situation for mango. There is great need to protect mango

fruit from pre to post harvesting problems. Our research work consists on such

findings, which contribute the positive role for the betterment of mango. This

thesis provides the knowledge about the current status of mango in the Pakistan,

particularly in Sindh province; give knowledge about the production of mangoes

in Pakistan, contributes the knowledge about mango varieties and most growing

mango areas of Sindh province. Thesis awakes about fruit fly pest, which is

apprehensive problem in Sindh Pakistan. This thesis high lights the major pest of

mango, fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis and susceptible varieties of Sindh Pakistan

in current situation. This Thesis positively contribute to the further research

work on mango fruit, especially on the susceptibly of mango varieties against

Bactrocera species; because a very little bit work has been done in Pakistan, it

should needs do more research work on the other varieties of mango, for this

purpose this research thesis will be helpful for further guidance of this important

aspect of research. Second contribution that if prearranged knowledge about

mango varieties and its pest fruit fly, which available in this research book, will

apply in fields and provide to growers through agricultural departments, it will

be helpful for control of fruit flies and protect cash varieties of Pakistan. Which

are undermined in alarming position in current time.

1.3 INTRODUCTION OF MANGO

Mango (Mangifera indica) is known as the “king” of fruits and grown in the

tropics and subtropics of the world [1]and [2]. Mango is grown commercially

and economically in 87 countries of the world [3], [4], [5]and [6]. Mango

producing countries are Mexico, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Brazil, Philippines

and Thailand [6].Fourteen % area of total agriculture area of the world is

employed in mango cultivation, [4]. Annual production of mango was estimated

about 15.7 million metric tons approximately 20 million tons, [7] and [8].

According to world report, more than 100 varieties of mango have been

documented all over the world, [4].

___________________________________________________________3

1.3.1 ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL VALUES OF MANGO

The subcontinent is well known for many famous mango varieties. India is first

ranked country in mango producer countries, with share about 64% in total world

production of mango meanwhile Pakistan is fourth ranked in production and

exporting mangoes, [1]. Pakistan possesses very fertile soil, therefore it is

suitable place for mango cultivation. In Pakistan over all 192,000 hectares are

under the cultivation of citreous fruits with per capita 2458 thousand tons, out of

156 thousand hectares of mango field cultivated with production of 1753000

thousand tons. Mango fruit is the second main fruit in Pakistan,[9] and [9, 10].

Mango fruit is widely grown in sindh and Punjab, Chaudhary (1994) Pakistan

cultivated mango crop about 103.1 thousand hectors. Punjab produces 52.66%

and Sindh produces 45.68%. Whole production was assessed at 1673900 metric

tons produce in 2005, [11]. Southern Punjab and Sindh are suitable for the

fertility of mango fruit [12]. There are more than 1000 varieties of mangoes in

the world, and in Pakistan there are 350 mango cultivars. Pakistani mangoes are

specially liked by others countries due to taste, colour, and aroma, size and

flavor, [13], [3]) and [4]. Pakistan exports to Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United

Kingdom, Bahrain, France, Germany Gulf and England (Europe) markets, [3]

1.3.2 VARIETIES OF PAKISTAN

Mango is a major fruit of Pakistan and is mostly grown in Hyderabad, Mirpur

khas, Nawabshah, Sukkur, Muzafergarh, Faisalabad, Multan and D.I Khan, [14])

and [15]). In Sindh, Hyderabad, Mirpur khas, Naushahro feroze, Sukkur,

Khairpur, Tando Allahayar and Tando Muhammad khan cultivate mango fields

in large scale and also cultivate other fruits such as Bannana, guava, jujube and

many other fleshy fruits, [16]. Sindh produces some famous mango varieties,

production about 8000 to 21600 kg/hectares yield. These famous varieties

include, Sindhri, Saroli, Langra ,Dusheri and Gulab khas as well as early season

varieties, Swarnarika, Chunsa (Summer behisht, Black, Sufaid), Beganpali, Salih

Bahai and Anwar ratole as midseason and Neelam and Sonaro as late season

variety [17]). In Sindh harvesting seasons start from end of May to late August.

Sindhri is the main variety of Sindh and Chunsa leads as major variety of Punjab

both varieties are delicious and popular for their taste and flavor. Sindhri variety

___________________________________________________________4

is highly demanded in the world exporting market. It is a unique variety grows

only in Sindh [3]All these cultivars have different from their taste, flavours and

their nutritional values [18]and [19]. Mango is a popular fruit all over the world,

due to its taste as well as nutritional value. It is an energy providing fruit with

74K calories per 100 edible portions and it is the best source of vitamin ‘C” [20].

Mango has a good nutritional value and there is great variation in size, color and

quality of the fruits. Mango is an excellent source of vitamin A and C, as well as

a good source of potassium, beta-carotene and fiber. Normally it is produced for

human consumption as raw or ripe mango products. During the processing of

ripe mango, its peel and seed are generated as waste, which is approximately 40-

50% of the total fruit weight. Mango peel is a good source of dietary fiber and its

chemical composition may be comparable to that of citrus fiber. The peel has a

high value of antioxidant activity and glucose retardation index, while its aroma

and flavor are pleasant [21]. Flavors (Chemical composition) of different

varieties of mango are different according to area production, [22], [23]

1.3.3 USES OF MANGO

Mango known is one of the tremendous fruit among all indigenous fruits,

because of having striking fragrance, attractive shades of colour, mouth-watering

taste and high dietary value, [24]. Mangoes are used in different ways. Its fresh

form used as desert. It is also used as flavoring in Jellies and crisps, made into

pickles, Juices and shakes [3]and[25].The mango fruit is full of antioxidants

which are extremely beneficial for the human body. It is anti-cancerous and

helps in protection against viruses [25].

1. 3.4 FRUIT FLIES AS PEST OF MANGO

Unfortunately, like all food production, mango production has severe problems

as well huge quantity of mango production is lost due to attack of pest and some

disease before pre-harvesting period, [26]. Fruit flies are one of the repugnant insect

pests and cause massive threshing of mango production, [27] and [3]. Every year

maximum loss of fruits and vegetables is caused by fruit flies of about 144.4

million US dollars [9]The major hosts of fruit flies are Guava, Mango, Jujube,

Saputo and vegetables. Adult flies mostly attack ripe mangoes and their larvae

___________________________________________________________5

infest and damage the pulp of mango [28].Increase in the infestation of fruit flies

in mangoes due to it could not be possible to export mango fruit to advanced

countries, [29]. These Fruit flies found approximately 4000 to 4500 species

world’s tropical, subtropical and temperate regions. All Fruit flies about 2000

species, under 71 genera 13 tribes and four subfamilies are identified [30] and

[31]. Fruit flies Genus Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae) attacks the ripe as well

as unripe fruits, [32].Genus Bactrocera of fruit flies spread all over the worlds

like Australia, South Pacific and Asia. Few species exists in Africa and only

single species of fruit fly B.Oleae (olive fly) (Rossi) exist in Southern Europe

[33]. About 250 species of Bactrocera are important and distributed thought- out

the world [34]. Total 128 species were identified and out of these 98 species

found in India and in Pakistan out of 98 species, 48 species” attack on mango

fruit [35]. Fruit flies under group Dacus genus Bactrocera and family

Tephritidae, all species of this genus hostile to the mango fruit. Fruit flies posed

a significant threat to fruits and vegetable production and to the unimpeded

export of fresh fruits and fleshy vegetables throughout the world[36].The

availability of host fruit is an important influence, because relation between fruit

availability and fruit fly population directly related, [28].These fruit Flies mostly

attack on commercial varieties; particularly the late varieties were more affected

than early varieties [37]. Bactrocera species of fruit fly spoil the quality and

quantity of mango and hinder in international [38]and [3]. In Sindh Dacus zonata

(saunder fly) and Dacus dorsalis (Hendle) are the most commonly attacked on

fruits [9]. During 2013 mango fruit fly was greatest hostile on major varieties

like Chunsa, Sindhri and Sonara varieties in Sindh [39].

1.3.5 FRUIT FLIES HOST SPECIFICATION

The three species genus Bactrocera such as B.cucurbitae, B.dorsalis and

B.zonata are very harmful pest for the fruits and vegetables etc., [40].Fruit fly

pest remains active from March to September. B.dorsalis does not best for all

fruits [41] but it is important pest for deciduous fruits [42]. Fruit flies have host

specification and some are commonly feeding and infest fruits and vegetables

[43] There is a large variability among mango varieties to fruit fly infestation

[44], [45]; and [46]. Fruit flies are a major problem for the mango fruit.

___________________________________________________________6

Anastrepha obliqua serious fruit fly pest of mango in Sao Paulo Brazil [47]. In

Mauritius the Peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (diptera: Tephritidae)

is considered as a major pest of mangoes [48]. In oriental region three species

are very common Bactrocera zonata belongs to South and South East Asia and

it attacks more than 50 host Plants like guava, mango, peach, apricot, fig and

other citreous fruits, [33]. Bactrocera cucurbit is native species of tropical Asia

and spread to Pakistan 125 kinds of fruit are host, according to Pakistan report it

severely attacks to all the cucurbit plants, it normally causes 20%-75% the

damage to melon fruit [38]. In Pakistan there are two fruit fly species that is

attacking on mango varieties; one is Bactrocera dorsalis commonly known as

the oriental fruit fly, which is a serious pest of the mango and the other is

Bactrocera Zonata, commonly called the Peach fruit fly. It is minor pest of

mango fruit, [9].Both Species are harmful for the export of mango because they

spoil mango by infestation and decrease the value of the mango [29]

1.3.6 ORIENTAL FRUIT FLY BACTROCERA DORSALIS (HENDEL)

The oriental Fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) (Hendle) (Diptera: Tephritidae) was first

discovered in 1912 from Taiwan and now found in the Asia and pacific regions, [49].

According to [50] the oriental fruit fly is native to humid Asia and is present in about

270 host plants because it has been recorded as polyphageous [51] and [33] The

Bactrocera dorsal is polyphageous nature, host plants including many types of

commercial fruits like citreous, mango, peach and many tropical and subtropical

vegetables and fruits, [52], [41]; [53] and [54]. Bactrocera dorsalis is dispersed in the

oriental region like Bhutan, China, Myanmar, Thailand, Bangladesh, India and

Pakistan [54]. Bactrocera dorsalis dominant pest of mango [55], [56], [57].

Bactrocera dorsalis species is also recorded in USA [58]. Oriental fruit fly is not only

economically significant but also plays a main role for quarantine [49]. This Fruit fly

Bactrocera dorsalis is a serious pest of mango cause 5-10% yield loss [59].

Bactrocera dorsalis attacks mangoes and results in mango, loss of about 5% to 80%

[43]and [52]). Bactrocera dorsalis is very destructive pest of fruits and infest more

than 100 host plants including many commercial fruits including mango fruit which is

one of the major host of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendle) (Diptera: Tephritidae).

Bactrocera dorsalis causes 1-31% loss of fields in India, [32]. In Pakistan fruit fly

___________________________________________________________7

Bactrocera dorsalis infest many varieties of mango for instant like Dushairy variety it

infests 3.6% to 10%. While in Beganpali variety the damage is about 80% Farzana

[60]. Bactrocera dorsalis attacks many varieties of mango like Khirshapat, Langra

and Fazli. These attacks on mango at the time of harvesting when the fruit is mature,

because flies can easy to puncture the fruit by ovipositor [61]. [62]reported that fruit

flies mostly hit ripe and unripe fruit before harvesting; they hatch eggs in the fruit and

larvae were feeding on pulp of the fruit start, internally damaging the fruit which

results in the fruit weakening and falling to the ground before it reached into ripened,

climatic influence directly or indirectly affects the development, hatching and

mortality, of fruit flies [63].

1. 3.7 ECOLOGY (INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENT ON PEST)

Abundance of Fruit fly and its habitats is mostly influenced by ecological parameters

like host plants (biotic factors) and weather (a biotic factor). The population of fruit

flies emerge gradually in mango orchards from 1st week of March, as late mangoes

grown starts fruit flies population becomes increase in the 4th week of May as the fruit

ripened and starts harvestation. Infestation of fruit fly is varied due to alteration of

climatic conditions [64]. Bactrocera dorsalis lay eggs mostly in favorite host mango

about thirty to forty days before harvesting of the fruit, [65]. The change in natural

climatic conditions like rainfall, temperature and moisture directly affect the

development of pests as well as demography of species and indirectly affects the

availability of hosts and presence of natural enemies [52]. Sindh province gets

warmer during mango season, due to this reason the mango season is one month

earlier than Punjab province; this A biotic factor gives the advantage to sindh

province to cultivate early cultivars of mango. Mango being a seasonal fruit possesses

very short period during summer season at ambient temperature [66]. The

Environmental conditions like temperature, humidity and other such factors are

effective for pest development and emergence [67] [68]. For the successful control of

insects’ observation of the feed habitat the feeding habitat, developmental stages (time

of all stages), the climatic conditions (humidity, temperature and rain) which affects

the survival and growth rate is mostly faster of insects. During the hot and humid

season, growth rate is mostly faster because temperature is co-related with their

survival and also taken short time period during development from egg to adult

___________________________________________________________8

[69].Ecological defense in the pest management strategies, examine the management

of biotic and a biotic things eradicate pest infest from crop, [70]. In Hawaii Island, it

was observed that the Bactrocera dorsalis flight (movement) is effected by wind

speed. It is noticed that many adults made their way for long distance, beside the

existing air flow. The pressure of air on movement of fruit fly flight does not affect

visibly. The males of B.dorsalis find their ways to pheromone traps against powerful

trade winds. Naturally, directions of fruit flies towards host require flight against air

movement. Although in Hawaii Island B.dorsalis adults will freely discovered and

infest favorable hosts by their position with reference to strong -wind patterns. The

associations of high velocity winds, such as those caused by local storms, hurricanes

or typhoons to the allocation of fruit flies can only be conjeduce /guess. Certainly

strong winds can carry many objects as small as fruit flies and most probably they can

hold and set them down in any place at distance of many miles away. Over all regions

there are different insect faunas (island and mainland areas) due to paths of hurricanes

or typhoons, arranged and transported of infested fruits and vegetables. The long

movement of fruit flies may be frequent result of high velocity winds borne and

introducing are common occurrence [71]) and [72].

1.3.8 BIOLOGY OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA DORSALIS

Biology was carried out in laboratory under control conditions with temperature

fixed at (27 ºC -28 ºC) and (31ºC -36 ºC) Humidity 60%-65% and Photoperiod

10 to 12 hours provided on their natural diet mango and sugar solution.

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) is a complex species, it resembles with Dacus

dorsalis Hendel, Chaetodacus ferruginous. Var. Okinawanus Shiraki, Musca

Muscaferruginea, Fabricius, all these commonly called as oriental fruit fly

Sinclair (2000). The Bactrocera dorsalis adults size is of about 8mm as

commonly it is longer than Musca domestica as the colour of the body is bright

yellow with a black “”T””shaped mark on abdomen. Wings are apparent. A

female is different from Male, as it has pointed slender ovipositor by which it

sheds eggs under the skin of host fruit. Eggs are tiny, cylindrical in shape are

laid in cluster form. The larvae are of a creamy-white colour and the size is about

10mm grow in the pulp of fruit [73]

___________________________________________________________9

It is very difficult to observe eggs by naked eyes, because eggs of fruit flies are

deposit in tissues of fruit. Female fruit fly lay the eggs in bunch shape with each

bunch having over 500 more eggs shedding. All larval instars of fruit fly

B.dorsalis, their shape (Morphology & physiology) was descripted by [74]. Size

and developmental time of larval instars given by [75]. Larvae emerged after few

hours and larvae subsequently started feeding on the pulp of fruit or fermenting

material. Larvae feed for about five to six days and afterward they crawl,

jumping and move out from fruit or fermenting material and turn in to pupae

stage. The Adults of fruit flies emerged after several days. After emergence of

fruit flies, they are exposed to day light and they become sexually active within

two days, under controlled conditions, life cycle from egg to adult can complete

within a minimum time of eight days. The favorable conditions for all

developmental stages of the fruit flies is moist, decaying (fermenting).This

unrefined supplies is key turn round of concentration in examination and

exclusion of fruit fly infestation because Fruit flies breeding and feeding occurs

mostly in ripened fruits and vegetables, as well as in moist decaying natural

materials, (Professional Pest Control Products, On-line, 2004). It’s very difficult

to control an insect during egg and pupae stages because they are immobile and

in resting stage (do not move or feed). They are situated mostly in rocky areas

where they are underground in cracks and crevices in cocoons [36]. The last

instars and adult can be controlled easily, because they are visible in their size is

large resistant capacity to pesticides form is good. Best control of insects can be

achieved at the larval instars or nymph stages where the insect are small, active

and vulnerable [73]. Bactrocera dorsalis breeds in continuously hot and humid

areas. Adult female lay about 1200-1500 eggs during their life and their life span

in the field are 1-3 month, as population of oriental fruit fly span rapidly grow,

female fly lay clusters of 1-20 eggs during their life in a single fruit, after

hatching larvae emerge and they jump out when these reached to third instar.

Adult males spread several miles before they achieve sexual adulthood. Male

fruit flies are impressively attracted to methyl eugenol (sex pheromone) [76].

Oriental fruit fly mates regularly with four to five days intervals during summer

Season in Hawaii Island. When sexually mature, females attach with males and

males will mate frequently. Adults are sexually mature, copulate mostly at

evening time. The first mating attempt of any fruit fly, there are great chances of

___________________________________________________________10

fecundity or fertility eggs for life; but more regular mating attempts maintain

maximum fertility. Successive fertilization of the virgin females with ordinary

males within 10 days of maturity [77]. Tropical fruit flies are power full fliers

and having significance ability to cover a long distance. Flies (insects) having

different survival places for feeding, mating and for oviposition and these

different habitats may cause increase movements of flies (insect) [34], [78], [79]

[80]. B.dorsalis move about 65km which is a long distance to cover[81]; [82]

[83]. In Pakistan adult Bactrocera dorsalis is active on fruits when they are fully

ripening [59]. An adult of B. dorsalis hardly ever appears on guava orchard in

Hawaii but during oviposition activity, it appears almost daily, [84].

1.3.9 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF MANGO VARIETIES

Mangifera indica L. (Mango) is the oldest and most important fruit in the entire

world, and is very famous in Subcontinent (Indo-Pak). Pakistani mangoes

possess best status due to their outstanding characteristics like flavor, taste, and

nutritive, benefits [13]. The fruit flies directly attack the ripened fruits; as the

larvae feed on pulp of mango and cause flecked fruit, which decreases the

marketing values and makes exporting of fruit impossible [85]. Plants genetically

as well as phenotypic in stressors such as nutrients imbalance, soil composition,

micro climate plant genetics plant tissue, ontogeny biotic induction responses,

somatic mutations, the Plant chemistry these are all interplay between crop

which are stressor not only the genotypic but also phenotypic or biochemical

properties which enable them to avoid tolerate or recover from the effects of

insect pest attacks and toxic metals [86]; [87], [88], [89]; [90], [91], [92], [93];

[94];[95] and [96]. Mango fruit highly threatened by many insect pest, its quality

and quantity mostly influenced by the fruit fly and mango mealy bug pest. [97]

and [98]. Many species of fruit flies have shown to affinity and performance for

a specific varieties which is commercially important crops [99], [100]; [45];

[101]; [102]; [103]; [104]. Varietal liking can be due to expressed desirability

to fruit bearing trees and greater susceptibility to oviposition in fruits which

raises larval concert within fruit and highest infestation rate in the field, [105];

[106]

___________________________________________________________11

1.3.10 ATTRACTANT OF FRUIT FLY TOWARDS THE MANGO

ORCHARDS

The host and pest relation exposed a large variety of crop suitability as hosts of pest,

[18]. Plants have some quality characters that attract the pest, on this basis insect

damage the crop. Probably the mechanisms of fruit that enhance the susceptibility of

mango varieties against fruit fly [44]. The mango fruit by physical appearance gives

the chance of ovipositor movement and also larval movement of fruit flies, [13].

Bactrocera dorsalis puncture the fruit by ovipositor and deposit the eggs in pulp of

host, larvae consume pulp and damage the pulp of host making the susceptible to

microorganisms and decomposition, frequently the adult females introduced, during

oviposition mode [107];[53] and [108]. In Sudan it was observed that the peel

thickness of mango had no major effect on susceptible varieties to infest the fruit fly,

such as the varieties Shendi, Baladi and Abu Samaka these are local varieties of

Sudan and were found most susceptible varieties in the field as their peel was thickest.

The Alphons also another variety was the least susceptible variety and its peel had the

least thickness. [109]. The earlier varieties of mango were less susceptible to fruit fly

infestation; mid maturing cultivars and hybrid were moderately infested and late

maturing varieties were most susceptible, [110]. Variation in mango varieties generate

a sensitivity for infestation of different fruit fly like Anastrepha obliqua in Brazil and

other quite a few other species of Tephritidae from Asia and Africa has been

recognized [57]; [111]. Bactrocera species are major pest of fruit and vegetable crops,

they lay their eggs into favorable host of vegetables and fruits, and their larvae

survive on the pulp and flesh of fruits White & Elson-Harris (1992). Fruit pulp is full

of nutrients, which plays, important role in the development of larvae, papal weight,

Adult growth and maturation, [112]; [113]; [114]; [115]and [116]. The chemical

characteristics (nutrient) are very rich like carbohydrates, vitamins (A and C), amino

acids, fatty acids and proteins [117]. Crop pest insects prefer the favorable host and

select the ripe sites of host where they oviposition easily, [118]; [119] and [120].

Mature fruit flies identified the fruits, which are the most appropriate host (fruit) for

their egg laying and best for survival of offspring, [121]; [122, 123];. Female fruit

flies use their sense organs (olfactory, visual) for detecting the color, size shape and

aroma of host fruit; this is responsibility of female fruit fly only [124]; [125]; [126];

[127]; [128]; [129]. Dacine fruit flies mostly prefer the ripe and over ripe fruit [30];

___________________________________________________________12

[36]. The ripening stage of fruit increases the physical and chemical characteristics of

the fruit like colour, pulp firmness fragrance, flavor, Carbohydrates (sugar) and other

organic nutrients [130]; [131] and [132]. Physiological changes of ripe fruit play a

role in oviposition of fruit fly [133]; [134]. Physical parameter of ripe fruits like

firmness of fruit provide a wide area to female laying more and more batches of eggs

in them [135]. The fruit fly preferred thin skin of fruit because fruit flies like soft and

fully ripening fruits, thick peel and unripe fruits are resistant for oviposition of fruit

fly [136]. fruit fly Tephritidae species to prefer soft places of fully ripe fruits and lay

their eggs in cracks wounds [137]; [138]; [139]; [140] and [141]. The unripe fruit

contains high toxicity and acidity; such characters of unripe fruits make hindrances

for the oviposition and development of larvae, [142] and [143]. The quality and post-

harvest life of the fruit is affect by the maturity at harvest [144], [145]. However

proper quality taste and flavor of mango can only be guaranteed when fruits are

harvested after attaining physiological maturity, [146], [147]. The Physiological and

biochemical activities of over ripened fruits are different in comparison of ripen fruits

like moisture, sugar (carbohydrates) and storage life. [22]; [148]. Ripened values are

based on both physical and chemical parameters compulsory guaranteed the high

quality fruits harvested. [149] and [150]. Physical marks of maturity like weight, size,

shape external color ,total time period from blossom to harvest, specific gravity and

fruit demands are considered as standards for harvesting of fruit, [151], [152], and

[153]. Skin color was used as a ripened index in harvesting mangoes [22]; [151];

[144]; [152]; [23], [154]. Chemical parameters like TSS total , acidity and pH,

acid/sugar ratio, reducing sugars, tannins, volatile substance ascorbic acid, internal

color of the soft tissue and fats evaluate for ripeness of fruit [22]; [149]and [23].

Acids and other substance of fruit indicate that late harvested fruits sweeter and

different flavor and test. But early harvest unripe fruits are sour in test and physical

appearance are very hard [150]and [153]. According to chemistry of mango, mango is

full of nutrients like calcium, iron, protein, The composition of mango is different

according to varietal flavour and ripe/unripe stages .The composition of edible portion

of mango fruit contains 80%moisture ,63% calories,0.4% fats,16% carbohydrates,

20% vitamins-A, 3.6%thiamin B12.5% riboflavin B2, 2.2%vitamin C, 1.1% Calcium

and 4.0 % iron [69], [155], [156]. Pakistani mangoes are full of nutrients such as

carbohydrate, vitamins, fats, amino acids and proteins [117].The consumers

acceptance depend high quality of fresh mangoes are flour volatiles, texture and

___________________________________________________________13

chemical constituents [157]. The important key component of mango for consumers is

the color which attracts the consumer for buy particular variety. [158], [32] host plant

resistance is very effective tool for the reducing damage, [32]. Langra is the least

susceptible commercial variety which could be used for breeding. Hybrids with

Banganapalli parentage are more susceptible. New teqniques of crop cultivation

create critical environment for damaging fruits by pest resistance varieties and

farming practices which render the field environment less attractive to the pest, [159].

The Present Study was conducted in a laboratory under controlled conditions that

includes ecology, biology (Bactrocera Species) and susceptibility of mango varieties

of sindh. Biology of Bactrocera (species) like B.dorsalis (Hendel) was observed in

laboratory under controlled conditions. The control conditions like temperature, and

humidity in the Entomology rearing laboratory at Zoology department University of

Sindh Jamshoro, Study on the effect of environment conditions like climatic factor,

light intensity, temperature, humidity etc. Ecology and biology are very much

relevant; because development and growth of pest are dependent on ecological factors

like biotic and a biotic factors. The susceptible varieties of mango in Sindh were

observed. Susceptibility means detection of the sensitivity of fruit, which are the

physical and chemical characteristics of fruit that attract the pest. During present

study analysis the biochemical and biophysical characteristics of mango, this attracts

fruit fly towards fruit.

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

The structure of thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter one consists of

introduction of host and pest, and explains the major parameters of ecology and

biology of fruit flies Bactrocera species and also the susceptibility of mango

varieties. The chapter two of thesis consists of the previous work of researchers

which is related to the present research work and under the light of pervious

literature, elaborate the further research work on the environmental conditions,

Pest recognition and determine the sensitivity of mango varieties. Chapter three

consist the frame work of research, in this chapter used the standard rearing

techniques of pest in the light of previous literature, according to the

international standard method of ICIPE (international center of insect physiology

and Ecology). Ecological parameters observed by the modern instruments

___________________________________________________________14

(Hygrometer and thermometer) and population of fruit flies were observed by

world controlling standard method of pheromones (Eugenol trap). The

susceptibility of mango varieties was observed by the consumption of pulp by

larvae and collection of pupae. The attractant source of fruit flies measured on

the basis of bio-Physical and bio-chemical parameters according to the standard

method of (AOAC). Data analyses by standard method of ANOVA. Chapter No.4

consists on findings of research work. It is main part of thesis because result find

out and compare with others. Chapter five is last part of thesis which summarizes

the work and suggest for future research work.

___________________________________________________________15

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW/BACKGROUND

In this chapter we present the previous research work on mango and its pest fruit

fly. It is commercially cash fruit of Sindh Pakistan, many commercial varieties

of Sindh Pakistan are frequently affected by insect pest, major pest and serious

cause of damage by Bactrocera species of fruit fly. Present study was carried out

on three important aspects such as susceptibility of various mango varieties

ecology and biology of fruit fly and observed the source of attractant of fruit fly,

like physical and chemical characteristics of mango varieties were observed. In

the light of literature we have reviewed past and current research work found by

many new well known findings, about the fruit fly Bactrocera species. There is

lot of work has been done on this serious pest of mango in world, but it should

be needed in present time to work done on the susceptibility and resistance

varieties according to quality parameters of fruit, still there is no work has been

done on susceptibility of mango varieties against Bactrocera species in Sindh

Pakistan, Presently the present and past literature to established new status for

fruit flies Bactrocera species against the mango varieties of Sindh Pakistan.

2.1 ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF MANGO

[4]reported the mango production about 15.7% million metric tons and cultivated

all over the world about 14%.it is the king fruit and favorite by everyone, that’s

why, it is cultivated almost over all the world. [3] reported that India is first

ranked in mango producing countries and shares about 64% of in the world

mango production and Pakistan is the 4 th ranked country in mango production.

The mango fruit is first cultivated in Asia especially in subcontinent of the

world. There is lot of varieties which are very unique in India and Pakistan such

as Beganpali and Sindhri variety. India and Pakistan is the ranked first in the

world because huge number of varieties and large quantity of mango produced

here. [9] and [3], reported total production of mango 1753000 thousand tons and

in overall Pakistan 156 thousand hectares of mango. Mango fruit is the second

___________________________________________________________16

main cash fruit in Pakistan.[3]and [4], reported about more than 1000 varieties of

mango in the world, as in Pakistan 3500 mango varieties are cultivated.

[3]worked on the mango exporting according to him mango is second important

crop in Pakistan after citreous and Pakistan stands fourth number in the list of

mango producing and exporting countries. There exists a lot of potential for

mango exports from Pakistan but many factors hinder its development that

mainly including poor infra-structure, fluctuating production system, high and

unpredictable marketing cost, and lack of compliance to international

standardization, unfavorable government policies and fruit fly infestation.

2.2 ECOLOGY

[155] worked on environmental factors which influence on the fruit fly habitat

and abundance and population of fruit flies, such as abiotic factors helpful in the

development and growth while biotic factors increase the abundance of fruit flies

[57] worked natural climatic conditions rainfall, humidity and temperature,

which directly co-related to the development of pest, such as egg hatching

directly correlated with temperature, while emergence of pest occurs with high

humidity and rainfall. But it is indirectly affect the available host and natural

enemies, like ripeness of fruit concerned with temperature.[67]reported

environmental conditions affect the development of insect and target the

emergence of pest, moderate weather is favorable for both host and pest, but

above than average or maximum level it will be harmful for pest and host.

[71]and [72] reported the behaviors of fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis in Hawaii

Island; According to him Bactrocera dorsalis discover their favorable host by

strong wind patterns. Wind velocity also important factor, through winds fruit

flies find the way to reach their host.

[58]worked on the population dynamics of three important pest species, peach

fruit fly (Bactrocera zonata), Melon fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) and

oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Study was

conducted all the year round monitoring through male lure traps in Bari Chakwal

(Punjab, the fruit flies decrease population level from November to February,

and increased from March to August. According to him that the population of

___________________________________________________________17

fruit flies depend on the host population level fruit maturity, temperature and

rainfall. Availability of host fruit was another essential factor affecting

population fluctuation. Presence of host fruit increase the population of pest, as

the host fruit decline from its peak position, the pest population is decline with

positive correlation.

[160]) worked on the status of the fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in cote

d’ivoire and implications of mango exported, he stated the status of the different

fruit flies and population fluctuations on the basis of climatic conditions, and

also use the different trapping techniques. Fruit flies mostly grow with favorite

host, their occurrence increase or decrease according to the presence of host.

[161] worked on the population dynamics of fruit fly in mango orchards in the

natural area of Niayes in Senegal, he reported the trend of the population of fruit

flies follows the dynamics of the rains. According to him control Fruit flies in

mango orchard can be controlled by the different trapping system such as methyl

eugenole, home maid baits of grinded and ground nutmeg. Emergence of flies

depend on the climatic factor such as rain fall and humidity.

2.3 DISTRIBUTION OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA

SPECIES

[30]worked on the family Tephritidae, according to him there are 4000 species of

fruit flies; about 700 species belong to Dacine fruit flies. [34]reported that, about

250 species of fruit flies and they are distributed to overall temperate, sub-

tropical, and tropical regions of the world.

According to report of [162]and [56]that fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis distributed

in overall Asia such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China (southern), Hong

Kong, India (numerous states), Indonesia, Japan (Ryukyu Islands), Laos,

Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Ogasawara Islands, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka,

Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam.

According to [163] reported that oriental fruit fly attacked first time in Africa in

form of Bactrocera invadens and it occurred in Kenya in 2003.

___________________________________________________________18

According to [164] Bactrocera dorsalis present in currant time on over all

United States and Hawaiian Islands, Mariana Islands, Tahiti, Hawaii, which is

introduced in 1944 or 1945.[162] reported that fruit fly was observed in the USA

(California and Florida) by trigger eradication programs. The four major oriental

fruit flies were observed in California by eradication program during 1960-1997.

[165]stated that in Hawaiian Island three species of fruit flies were found, which

belongs to Tephritidae family and Dacus group, such as Mediterranean fruit fly

in 1907 by (Weidemnn), Oriental fruit fly 1945 by (Hendle) and 1945 by Hardy

and Melon fruit fly 1895 by coquillett . [161] worked on population dynamics of

fruit flies in Senegal, according to him Bactrocera invadence (Drew) and

Ceratitis Cosyra (Walker), was more dangerous for fruits of Senegal especially

mango production, as the C.cosyra was first recorded from Bangladesh in 1912,

it is wide spread in all over Africa.

[166] reported that B.invadence first time recorded in Kenya.[162] reported that

mango fruit fly Ceratitis cosyra (walker) commonly called marula fruit fly

belong to (Insect: Diptera: Tephritidae) widespread in twenty two (22) countries

of the African (Sub-Saharan) such as Ivory coast, Madagascar, South Africa,

Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

According to study of white and [74], [167]) and [168]that Dacinae fruit flies are

fruit feeders and crop pests. [49] worked on distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendle) (Diptera: Tephritidae) according to him oriental fruit fly major pest of

mango fruit and it distributed in overall oriental region of Bhutan, China,

Myanmar, Thailand and India.

2.4 BIOLOGY

[34]also reported the biology and ecology of the Bactrocera dorsalis; He gave

the survival, fecundity, morphology and also states the ecological parameters like

temperature and humidity directly, correlated with the development of fruit flies

Bactrocera species [31], [169]and [170]) studied on puparia of oriental fruit fly,

B.cucurbitae and C.capitata. [171]and [164]also studied on biology and behavior

of fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis.

___________________________________________________________19

[73]worked on the morphological characteristics of Bactrocera dorsalis. Elson-

Harris (1994) worked on the morphology of eggs, fecundity and egg lying [75],

worked on the larval morphology and physiology and behaviors of Larvae.[73]

reported the adult emergence, Life cycle of fruit flies, breeding and feeding

behaviors of adult fly.[36] worked on the control of fruit fly on different life

stages of the insect. [172]worked on the mating behavior of Bactrocera

dorsalis.[77]also worked on the sexual behavior of Bactrocera dorsalis. [34]

worked on the movement behavior and its cusses by oviposition and habituation

of Bactrocera dorsalis.[84]worked on the oviposition behavior of fruit flies on

guava. [173] worked on the rearing Dacus Lactiferous (Hendle) on different

diets.

[174] worked on the taxonomy and biology of fruit flies according to him major

fruit fly pest of India was Bactrocera species and the Bactrocera dorsalis is the

complex species at least 10 species of it was recorded from India and worked on

the life cycle and its time duration of different life stages of fruit flies.

[175] worked on the rearing techniques for Dacus Latifrons (Hendel) (Diptera:

Tephritidae) on different diets such as carrot powder and citric acid, According

to him that different diets are affected the development, Pupal recovery Pupal

weight, Adult eclosion, Fecundity and fertility of D. Latiferons.

[176] worked on the mass rearing and quality control parameters and economic

importance of Tephritidae fruit flies in Africa, he introduced the fruit flies

worldwide and worked on different artificial rearing techniques in laboratory

conditions under different diets. [60]worked on the control of Mediterranean

fruit fly attack in sindh Pakistan; she reported the cultural and mechanical

control, bio control and discussed many useful controls for fruit fly.

[177] worked on the biology and management of Bactrocera cucurbitae, he

reported the life cycle, distribution, host speciation, nature of damage and

different strategies in integrated management of melon fruit fly.[162]worked on

the Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Insecta: Diptera:

Tephritidae) give detailed distribution, biology, synonymy, life history, host

___________________________________________________________20

damage, damage quarantine and management strategies of Bactrocera dorsalis in

details.

[61]) worked on the black bagging materials used for the control of mango fruit

flies, According to him different bagging materials such as black poly bags,

transparent poly bags brown papers were used for the control of mango fruit fly,

he experiment on two varieties of mango Langra, Khirshapat which are highly

attacked by the fruit fly.[178] worked on the hot water treatment for fruit fly on

mango varieties such as Chunsa and Sindhri, he reported that Pakistan produced

world’s best quality mangoes, but its growers and pest would like to exploited,

although hot water treatment of exportable mangoes effectively kill the fruit flies

but cannot significantly decline the fruit quality during post storage period.

[179]worked on fruit fly seasonally profile and production of mango in

Mauritius, he worked on the different control techniques such as Male

Annihilation technique and Bait Application techniques, fruit availability as well

as the temperature found to be important influence on Bactrocera

zonata.[54]worked on the Pre and post-harvest IPM for the mango fruit fly

Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in this he reported the control of fruit flies by Male

annihilation techniques such as Chemical control of Hydrothermal treatment.

[180]worked on identification of three species of reared Hawaiian fruit fly

Pupae, According to him In Hawaii island three species of fruit flies have

become found , Melon fly, Mediterranean fruit fly and oriental fruit fly. These

species was recognize on the developmental stage of puparia. [181]worked on

the biology of mango fruit fly ceratitis (walker) (insect diptera: Tephritidae), he

stated about the biology and complete life cycle of fruit fly ceratitis cosyra

(walker).[182]worked on the rearing of the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis

on different fruits and different varieties of mango Such as papaya, guava,

Bannana, Mango. According to him the different fruits affected on development

of larvae, pupal weight, weight, sex ratio.

___________________________________________________________21

2.5 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF MANGO VARIETIES

According to the [29] and [183] worked on the importance of the fruit fly. They

traced the eleven species of the fruit fly from Pakistan.

[85]worked on the 15 susceptible varieties of mango which are attacked by

Anastrepha Ludens and Anastepha Oblique and reported the role of under

developed fruits as pest reservoirs and management implications. These 15

varieties of mango are cultivated in Africa, both species of fruit flies belong to

Africa these species of fruit flies and all 15 varieties not found in Pakistan, we

have done work on Bactrocera dorsalis, it is current pest of mango in Pakistan.

[28]worked on the fruit fly, he stated that fruit flies attack ripe and unripe fruits.

Fruit flies mostly likes the ripe fruits, because mostly they attract to their shiny

yellow color and find out very soft place over the texture of the fruit.

[18]worked on the host and pest, if large variety of host, than the lot of chances

of pest availability. Fruit flies occurs mostly those agriculture areas where they

found their alternative host whole the year.

[58] worked on the physical appearance of mango, which provides the chances of

oviposition and larval development. Physical and chemical presence of mango

play important role in attraction of pest. The fruit flies search the soft and tender

places over the surface of fruit for egg laying. Oviposition behavior depend upon

physical appearance because fruit flies mostly detect the ripe fruits with shiny

color. Fruit fly progeny survive in the pulp of fruit, it needed the different

nutrients for the development and growth.

[107] worked on the susceptibility of mango by the puncturing ovipositor. In

oviposition behavior peel thickness of fruit play important role, because unripen

fruits have hard peel and hard pulp, for this there is less number of chances of

oviposition, while in ripen fruits there is greater chances for oviposition; because

ripen fruits have soft tender pulp and thin peel thickness, which make them

easier to puncture the fruit and shed their eggs by oviposit in soft pulp of fruit.

___________________________________________________________22

[109]worked on the susceptibility of varieties of Sudan according to him peel

thickness never possess the positive effect on the oviposition of fruit fly, some

varieties are more susceptible which have the thick peel but some varieties less

susceptible which have thin peel. According to [109] it is possible that physical

appearance means peel thinness not play major role in some less susceptible

varieties, there is lot of reasons in less susceptible varieties mostly these

varieties not more sweet in test, their pulp is fibrous not soft and juicy.

[184] worked on susceptibility of mango varieties, according to him the early

varieties were less susceptible as compare to late varieties. Infestation in all

varieties depend upon their long lasting duration and also climatic conditions

play important role in infestation. If in early season of mango temperature is

maximum and host in peek position there is greater chances of egg hatching in

pulp of fruit. If rainfall occurs in late season of host and seasons comes over

there is emergence of flies but they search another alternative host but less

oviposit on same host because very a few varieties available. Sometimes these

varieties are less sweat in taste.

[105]and [106] worked on the susceptibility of mango varieties by oviposition

behavior of fruit fly.

[117]worked on the chemical characteristics of mango on chemical basis

observed the proteins, fats, carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins and crude fibers

which are essential for the development of larvae. Chemical composition of fruit

is essential for the growth and development of fruit fly progeny.

[121] worked on the behavior of mature fruit flies; According to him the mature

fruit flies easily recognize those fruits which were best for oviposition and

survival for the larvae.

[130]worked on the ripening mangoes and observed the biochemical nutrients of

the mango.[136]; [185], [135]worked on the peel thickness and firmness of fruit

in physical parameters, according to them fruit flies prefer the thinnest peel

mango fruit and having high firmness, which is best for the survival of progeny.

___________________________________________________________23

[142, 186] and [143]worked on the unripe fruits. According to them unripe fruits

are highly acidic which are not best for the survival of larvae and oviposition of

eggs.[150]and [150]) worked on the ripened mangoes,according to him when the

fully ripe fruit the acid level decrease and the quantity of sugar

increase.[156]worked on the chemistry of mango fruit, he analysis the mango

fruit, which contain moisture 80%, 63% calories,0.4% fats,16% carbohydrates,

20% vitamins-A, 3.6% thiamin, B12.5% riboflavin, 2.2% vitamins C, 1.1%

calcium and 4.0 % iron

[159] worked on the susceptible varieties of mango, according to him the most

susceptible variety was Beganpali and the least susceptible variety was the

Langra variety. During this research it was also found that Beganpali was the

susceptibility variety, because it starts in mid of July up to mid of August, in

these months mostly monsoon season started and emergence of flies occurs,

because of this reason it is highly infested, while Langra is comes in s tart of

season mostly Indian researchers found bout this variety that in Langra variety

have high phenolic acid present, because of that fruit flies never attract towards

this variety.

[178] worked on the hot water treatment against the fruit flies on the Sindhri and

Chunsa varieties of mango. According to him hot water treatments effectively

kill the fruit flies but cannot deteriorate the quality of fruit. [47] worked on the

resistant varieties on the basis of the oviposition attempt with series of

laboratory experiment and also by field work.

[187]worked on the susceptibility of mango varieties by the presence and

absence of phenolic acid as chemical barriers to female fruit fly , Bactrocera

dorsalis (Hendel) in mango. Susceptible varieties we can found easily by

chemical characteristics of host fruit, because many ingredient such as sugar

which is most essential for growth and Ash which is essential for the

development of egg, 1st and 2nd instar.

[188]worked on the nutritive values of (Eugenia Jambolana), the specific fruit

cultivars, such as reducing sugar, Acid, crude fate.[189], worked on the

susceptibility of four mango varieties to the Africa invader fly, Bactrocera

___________________________________________________________24

invadens drew, Tsuruta and white (diptera: Tephritidae) in Ghana. He worked on

susceptibility of mango on puparia level, and some Physical characteristic of

mango.

[190]worked on the Physio-chemical characteristics of some mango varieties

such as Abusamaka, Galbaltor and Magloba, According to him, the Physio-

chemical properties of the three mango varieties different. Especially he worked

on sugar and Acidity of mango varieties. Sugar play important role in ripened

fruits, while acidity occurs in the unripen fruits many varieties such as Chunsa

which is sweet in taste but less acidic, while Sonaro variety which is less sweat

in taste and high acidic.

[191] worked on the sugar and acidity influence the flavor properties of mango

(Mangifera indica). [39] worked on quality of unripe mango varieties, he

reported that immature mangoes high acidic and having less sugar, low pH.

[192]worked on the physical and chemical characteristics of Mango.

[193]worked on the nutritional evolution of different mango varieties in

Bangladesh.[194]worked on the quality of mango fruit for Squashes available in

Lahore Market.

[195] worked Evolution of Physio-Chemical Characteristics of mango

(Mangifera indica L.) cultivars grown in D.I. Khan. [196] [6]worked on the

physiological and biochemical composition of different Mango cultivars at

various Maturity levels. [197]worked on the Physio-chemical characteristics of

various mango varieties.[198].

___________________________________________________________25

2.6 SUMMARY

In this section study the work of previous scientist. Different scientist discussed

about the % of mango production and status of countries according to world

production of mango. Earlier workers mention the 1000 varieties of mango in the

world. In previous studies the mention about the mango exporting of Pakistan

and its hinder factors, which decrease the worth of mango fruit in international

market. One of the most important hinder factors is fruit fly infestation. This

important fruit is under the influence of fruit fly in over all countries, there is lot

of work done on the fruit flies population in Africa, Malaysia and Hawaiian

islands and in Asian countries, also work has been done on the population of

fruit flies Bactrocera dorsalis, B.zonata and B. correcta in Punjab province of

Pakistan. The distribution of the fruit fly was described by earlier scientists in

different parts of world mostly in tropical and subtropical of world. Previously in

Africa and Asian countries worked on the population of this pest in mango

orchards, also discussed the environmental factors which influence and increase

the population of the fruit fly. In previous studies discussed many entomologists

about biology of fruit fly, about its morphological characteristic and

Morphometric characteristic on different fruits. [34] Worked on the biology and

ecology of the Bactrocera dorsalis; discussed the survival, fecundity,

morphology and also states the ecological parameters like temperature and

humidity directly, correlated with the development of fruit flies Bactrocera

species. [182]discussed the rearing method of the oriental fruit fly Bactrocera

dorsalis round the year on different varieties of different fruits, Such as papaya,

guava, Bannana, Mango. According to him the different fruits affected on

development of larvae, pupal weight, weight, sex ratio. In previous studies

researcher found the different rearing techniques of fruit flies. The lot of work

done on the Physical and chemical analysis of mango in Pakistan and out of

Pakistan. Susceptibility of varieties previously determined by African and Indian

scientists on local varieties of their native places, but it should be needed to work

on this important aspect of research in Pakistan.

___________________________________________________________26

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 ECOLOGY

3.1.1 AREA OF STUDY

The study was conducted during the period of June to September (2014 and

2015) in two districts of Sindh province (fig.3.1) of Pakistan, Mirpur khas

(Longitude 69°00′50.6″E and Latitude 25°31′39.3″N) and Naushahro feroze

(longitude 68°7'0E and latitude 26°50'0N). The selected orchards contain mango

trees as the main plantation. First orchard is about 50 hectors and the second is

30 hectors. Two localities are among the major mango growing areas were

included in this study. The study was conducted in 1 hector of both localities and

10 traps were placed hector, are approximately 10 varieties were present 50

hectors and 40 plants per hector. The distance between each tree was 40 ft. In

these traps the male fruit flies are annihilated by Eugenol pheromone. Male flies

trap up to 100 km can be possible, to trap from 100 km by this technique.

Figure 3-1 Map of Sindh province showing the location of

Mirpur Khas and Naushahro Feroze

https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Mirpur_Khas&params=25_31_39.3_N_69_00_50.6_E_region:PK

___________________________________________________________27

3.1.2 STRUCTURE OF TRAP

Two types of trap made of 2-3L plastic bottles were designed and used as

follows.

3.1.2.1 TRAP A

The 2-3 litters bottle, cut with scissor or knife, in such a way as it divided into 2

parts, the top part is 1/4th and bottom part 2/3rd in size. Dip the 1ml of Methyl

Eugenol volatile chemical (attractant of fruit fly) a thumb sized water- soaked

cotton swab was laid in the bottom of bottle. Took off the of lid of the top of the

bottle, Insert of the top part (neck side) of bottle in the bottom part of bottle in

such a way that it fixed in bottom of the bottle, sealed it with tape solution, two

holes (0.5cm) were drilled in the bottom of the bottle so it could hanged with

tree by rope (fig.3.2).

Figure 3-2 Trap A

3.1.2.2 TRAP B

Two holes (0.8 inch in diameter) were drilled on the top and bottom of the bottle,

then fixed on the pipe on both sides for the entrance of flies and in the ending

kept thumb sized water- soaked cotton swab the bottle, which was filled with the

1ml of Methyl Eugenol (fig.3.3).

___________________________________________________________28

Figure 3-3 Trap B

3.1.3 FIELD TRAPPING OF FLIES

The two types of traps were randomly placed within the two mango orchards,

during whole mango season eight replications of each trap were used in each site

i.e. each orchard had 10 traps for the collection and observation. We visited 50

times in each orchard during mango season in both years. Each trap was hung to

a branch about two to three meters above ground at the west side of the tree in a

shady place, on strong branches to support the weight of the trap, spaced at a

distance of twenty meters between adjacent traps. 10 traps per location were

fixed. The number of flies trapped was recorded fortnightly for a period of 2-3

weeks and Methyl Eugenole imbedded traps (supplied by gardeners), trapping

materials (volatile chemical) in each trap were changed every week (fig.3.4). At

the same time, the caught flies were collected using a fine camel brush, and then

preserved in 70% ethanol and placed in insect box (fig.3.5). Impact of climatic

factors on population dynamics of fruit fly in mango were carried out by

corelating metrological observation and fruit fly occurrence. Data on all mean

values for temperature (maximium and minimium) and total rain fall (mm) in

different standerd weeks were recorded from the metrological data

(www.timanddate.com 2014and 2015) .

http://www.timanddate.com/

___________________________________________________________29

Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5

Figure 3.4 – 3.5 Shows the collecting traps and flies in box

3.1.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data were analyzed following the procedure described by [199] for the

experiment. The means were compared using the least significant difference

(LSD) method. Calculation of correlation between population and weather

parameters by SPSS software package 21.0 was used.

3.2 BIOLOGY (COLLECTION AND REARING OF PEST

The study of biology regarding Bactrocera dorsalis (H.) was carried out in the

laboratory under controlled humidity and photoperiod and room temperature at

the Department of Zoology University of Sindh Jamshoro on the four different

varieties from June 2013 to July 2014. The infested mangoes of Sindhri, Chunsa,

Beganpali and Sonora were brought from the field and market. Infested (rotten, fallen

and spoiled) mangoes of four varieties were collected from the field and from market

(fig.3.6). About 50 mangoes of each variety were brought in the laboratory and checked.

The sign of fruit was the brownish color and presence of black spots with rotten patches

on the skin. For rearing in laboratory, all the infested mangoes were shifted in the cages

(fig.3.7) (50x50x50cm) and provided a sandy medium (layer of sand in cages at floor,

and was sieved and sterilized at 100ºc in oven). Laboratory controlled conditions (room

temperature varies between 26ºc-27ºc, humidity 55%-65% HM) and artificial light

(photo period LD 10:12 hours) was provided by bulb 100 watt), (fig.3.8-3.9).

Temperature and humidity were checked regularly. Humidity was maintained by water

spray and cages were kept regularly moist for emergence of flies. After three days, it was

___________________________________________________________30

observed that larvae (maggots) were moving above the mangoes, all the larvae grew left

the fruit went into sandy medium, After one day maggots become pupae. The larvae

pupated in soil (5-10 cm). All pupae were shifted into Petri dishes and counted. All

pupae were transferred to the chimneys (covered with white cloth) while the bottom had

the cotton and filter papers (fig.3.9). After 6 days, adults emerged. The adults of fruit

flies were kept in cages on artificial diet of 10% sucrose solution for survival and for

mating Ekesi et al., (2007) (fig.3.10-3.11). After one week, the adult flies matured

and were able to puncture the fruit through the ovipositor and shed their eggs under

the skin of the mango . Adult flies survive 4-5 weeks, the female survives 4 week, while

the male survives 2-3 week. Morphometric characteristics of different developmental

stages of Bactrocera dorsalis H. were taken by ocular micrometer; sample of 10

specimen of each developmental stage was taken for size. Death and existence of each

developmental stage of the species was investigated and verified through accumulative

percentage formula.

Total number survived of each stage ×100

Total No reared at first stage [200]

Figure 3-6 Collected infested mangoes Figure 3-7 Mangoes transfer in cages

___________________________________________________________31

Figure 3 -8 After two days mangoes Figure 3-9 Pupae in chimneys

Figure 3-10 Emerged flies transferred Figure 3-11 Emerged flies survive

in cages on 10% sucrose solution

Figure 3.6 -3.11 Shows rearing culture of the fruit flies Bactrocera dorsalis in

laboratory under controlled conditions.

___________________________________________________________32

3.3 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF FOUR MANGO VARIETIES

AGAINST FRUIT FLIES AT RIPENING STAGE OF

MANGO

3.3.1 FRUIT COLLECTION AND INCUBATION OF PEST

Four local mango varieties (Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro) were

selected to determine the susceptibility against Bactrocera dorsalis at fully

matured mangoes during mango season and Study was carried out for three

successive years 2014, 2015 and 2016 from the month of June to October at

rearing laboratory under controlled conditions average humidity 60%-65%,

temperature 27ºc-28ºc and photoperiod 10-12hrs.at department of zoology

university of Sindh Jamshoro. Mango varieties were collected from field as well

as bought from market. At least 100 mango fruits of four varieties (Chunsa,

Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro) were collected from three orchards Hyderabad

(Dr. Muhammad Hassan Pahawnar research garden), Mirpur khas (Talpur mango

fruit forms), Naushahro feroze (Sayed fruit form (gardens). These four varieties

become mature with interval in all three localities. During collection of mango

fruits, fresh and infested mangoes of given varieties were collected (fig.3-12-

3.13-3.14). The fresh ripened mangoes were stored in refrigerator for feeding

purpose of larvae and larvae of fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis were collected from

infested mangoes.

Figure 3-12 Figure 3-13 Figure 3-14

Figure 3.12- 3.14 shows the infested and fresh mangoes of given varieties

___________________________________________________________33

EXPERIMENT 1. The fruits were kept on large plastic trays (45×28×8cm) over a

moistened sand to collected larvae which excited fruits. The setup of plastic trays

and racks were placed in plastic cages (28×28×36cm) and covered with wire

gauze to inhibit other insects as of infestation the fruits. Fruits were cut up to

confirm all unseen larvae were collected (fig.3.13-3.14). Larvae were hand-

picked with pincers, counted and introduced on fresh piece of mango (fig.3.19);

all mangoes cast off in the experimentation had been protected from wiled flies,

and it is based on the conversation with the gardener’s export their fruits, all

mangoes used in experiments had been protected from wild flies , by fruit

capturing had not been hazarded to pesticide actions. To check for possible field

plague of the fruit, in every trial five mangoes were casually selected and

hatched in separate plastic containers to see if pupae were recovered. No pupae

were recovered from these un-infested mangoes.25 larvae of each developmental

stage (1st, 2nd and 3rdinstars) were collected from infested mangoes. These larvae

were introduced on 25gms at fresh piece of each mango variety, which were kept

separately in cages under controlled conditions room temperature 27ºc-28ºc,

humidity 60%-65%, photo period 10-12 hrs. In rearing laboratory. The weight of

mango piece (25gms) was calculated every week. It was found that the weight

decreased of mango piece because of larvae’s consumption of the mango

(Fig.3.21). Each Piece (25gms) of mango was placed in petridishes with cotton

and filter paper at the bottom, chimneys covered with black and white cloth (12-

chimneys) (fig.3.18-3.20). Each Petri dish was kept separately on thin layer of

sand in cages (No.12cages), and this sand was collected from mango fields

(orchards). The larger particles and debris were removed from sand with sieve

and sterilized at 100ºc for 10hrs in oven at Centre of Excellence University of

Sindh Jamshoro. [201]

___________________________________________________________34

Figure 3-15 Fresh mango Figure 3-16 cut the fresh Figure 3-17 Weigh mango

Figure 3-18 Pieces of all varieties Figure 3-19 collected larvae from

Infested mangoes

Figure 3-20 Culture in Chimneys Figure 3-21 after consumption

Mango piece

Figure 3.15- 3.21 Shows the culture for susceptibility, collected Larvae from infested

fruit and introduced in the fresh fruit, calculated the weight of mango.

___________________________________________________________35

EXPERIMENT 2. Puparia were collected frequently from each variety of mango

every day. Puparia (the percentage of puparia were collected according to per kg

of mangoes) were counted each month (fig.3.22). The pupal recovery was

observed from June to October (2014, 2015 and 2016). Puparia were picked with

camel brush and counted, which they were placed separately in petridishes in

rearing cages. The humidity and moist were maintained in rearing cages with

water spray (with interval of half an hour) (fig.3.23). Emerged adults were then

move to other cages. The upper and lowest parts of cages were enclosed with

plastic glass, which were covered with net for ventilation on three sides. While

one side were contained muslin cloth sleeve to assess allow to cages. Adult flies

were provided with water cotton swab dipped in beaker 10% sugar solution for

feeding (fig.3.24). Cages were regularly cleaned and hygienic environment was

maintained. The susceptibility of mango varieties was observed on the pupal

recovery and development of larvae as well as survival rate of adults on four

varieties. Weight of pulp and pupae were counted, amount of developed flies

from overall number of puparia was calculated with % after one week

(fig.3.25),(3.26). [189]

Figure 3-22 Collection of puparia Figure 3-23 Spray of water in cages

___________________________________________________________36

Figure 3-24 Provide food for flies Figure 3-25 Collecting flies

Figure 3-26 Collected flies in cages

3.3.2 ASSESSMENT OF FRUIT QUALITY PARAMETERS

Further fruit used in experimentation,10 mangoes from maturing stage of mango

varieties Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro respectively, were casually for

measurement of physical and chemical characteristic’s. The sample included fresh

mangoes and mature, which was monitored keenly with a magnifying glass for the

clear visual signs of infestation like bruises, cuts or blackening on the peel of

mangoes (fig.3.27-3.28). Peel (figure 3.30) thickness was measured with screw gauge

(fig.3.29) (department of Physics University of Sind Jamshoro). The length of each

fruit sample of given varieties was measured with foot scale. The surface texture and

colour of fruit were observed with naked eye. The Samples were transported to the

Institute of Advance Research Studies of Chemical Sciences (IARSCS) University of

Sindh Jamshoro for measurement of Bio-chemical characteristics of fruit.

___________________________________________________________37

Figure 3-27 Ripened mangoes Figure 3-28 checked fruit

Figure 3-29 Screw gauge Figure 3-30 Peel of mango

TOTAL SUGAR (REDUCING AND NON-REDUCING): The sugar of the fruit was

determined according to standard method of [202]. The reducing and non-

reducing sugar were analysed by the method of [188] Benedict’s solution is the

mixture of sodium citrate, sodium carbonate and copper sulphate that changes

the colour from blue to yellow and white in the occurrence of reducing sugar

such as glucose also called Benedicts reagent.10gms of sodium carbonate

dehydrated, 17.3gms of sodium citrate were added in a beaker, 50ml distilled

water was added to make it dissolved. This solution was transferred into 100ml

solution of graduated cylinder. Water was added up to 85 ml mark (Benedict

solution). Ten mangoes of each variety were used for analyses (fig.3.30). The

juice was extracted from every sample and bulked (fig.3.32). Five grams blended

pulp (fig.3.31) 1ml of 6 N HCL was added, this was boiled after 50ml of water

___________________________________________________________38

addition. It was neutralized by 7 drops of 40% NaOH. After neutralization,

volume was adjusted up to 100 ml. In 50 ml of water in beaker, 5ml of Benedict

solution was added and boiled. Now pulp containing mixture was titrated against

this Benedict solution till the color changed and appeared along with ppt. [202]

In fruits various sugars are present in certain forms like reducing and non-

reducing. Reducing sugars are hexose sugars which can decrease compounds

such as alkaline silver nitrate, cupric salt solution etc. When they make reduction

reactions, they themselves are oxidized. [188].

Five grams of sample were taken in a beaker and 100 ml of warm water was

added. The solution was stirred until all the soluble matters dissolved and

filtered through watt man paper into a 250 volumetric flask. Pipette 100ml of the

solution prepared into a conical flask. Added 10ml diluted HCl and boiled for

5min. on cooling neutralized the solution to phenolphthalein with 10% NaOH

and make up to volume in a 250 volumetric flask. This solution was used for

titration against Fehling’s. Non-reducing sugar was estimated as the difference

between the total sugar content and reducing sugar content.Total sugar and

reducing sugar of the Juice was then calculated as below:

Total sugar =12×100×100/V×10 ×1000 ………...................….. (1)

% reducing sugar = Factor (4.95) × dilution (250) …………….. (2)

Titre ×wt. of sample ×10

___________________________________________________________39

Figure 3-30 Mangoes of four varieties Figure 3-31 Five grams mango pulp

Figure 3-32 Mango solution

___________________________________________________________40

TOTAL ACIDITY (% T.A.) The citreous condition (Acidity) of fruits was

measured by procedure given by Ruck (1969) on the physical approaches for

study of fruit and vegetables crops [202].Ten mangoes of each variety were

examine. Ten grams of fresh pulp was taken and the juice was squeezed. 25ml of

sap was pipetted into beaker and 200ml of purified water added. It was boiled for

1 hour. After cooling the mixture was filtered for titration. 50 ml of watery

extract was pipetted and titrated against 0.1M sodium hydroxide (NAOH). Two

drops of phenolphthalein was added to the solution as an indicator. The volume

of the 0.1 M NaOH required to defuse the acid in the acidity was recorded at the

point where its colour was change from yellow to pink (fig.3.33). Its pH. was

observed by using a pH. meter [202]. (fig.3.34). The total sourness of the juice

was measured as below:

% total. Acidity = 1 × equivalent weight of acid × normality of NAOH× titter

Weight of sample

Figure 3-33 Mango solution for Figure 3-34 pH. meter

Acidity analysis

___________________________________________________________41

MOISTURE The Moisture % was determined by weighing the mass of food

before and after the water evaporation in accordance with [203]and [202]. A

sample of twenty grams of mango pulp of each variety was taken. They were

weighed on an electronic weight machine and then put in beakers. The moisture

of the sample was observed by drying it in an electronic oven at 1100ºc

(fig.3.35-3.36) over 12hrs preferred till constant weight was obtained. The loss

in weights gave the moisture content. The moisture (water) content can be

calculated by the following formula.

Moisture Content (%) = Initial weight of sample - Final weight of ×100

Initial Weight

Figure 3-35 Electronic oven Machine Figure 3-36 Samples

___________________________________________________________42

ASH The samples heated at 800ºc to burn off all the carbon-based substances.

and the mineral substance which remains at that temperature is called Ash

[202].The crucible is weighed list; the samples is then added to the crucible and

the difference is weighed thus, the weight of sample is determined. Ten grams of

each sample was weighed in silica crucibles (fig.3.37-3.38). The crucible was

heated in a muffle furnace for about 6hrs at 800ºc. After this all volatile material

escaped, leaving only the non-volatile material. Ash samples may be contain for

mineral determination. It was cooled in a desiccators and evaluated to

completion of ashing to burn off all the organic matters. It has heated again in

the furnace for half an hour, cooled and then weighed. This was repeatedly done

till weight became constant (ash became white and greyish white). The Ash can

be calculated by the following formula.

Ash % = weight of ashed sample ×100

Weight of sample taken

Figure 3-37 Crucibles Figure 3-38 Muffle furnace Machine

___________________________________________________________43

3.3.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyses the larval consumption. One

way-ANOVA was used to examination for outcome of variety, ripening phase

and their interactions. If there was important interface effect then the dependent

figures were collective across variations and result of ripening stage was tested

using one-way ANOVA for each variety separately. Data were rehabilitated, if

required to meet the assumptions of ANOVA pupa to adult and number of pupae

in the different mango varieties were experimental and noted. Variables analyses

were percentage of emerged adult from the whole number of puparia was

expressed as % of adult appearance. Physical and chemical appearances of

mango varieties changed (i.e., peel thickness and total sugar). Mean of fruit

length, and thickness were compared using one-way ANOVA. Regression

analysis was used to define the connection between the consumption, sugar,

Acidity, Moisture, Ash and pH. The statistics were analyses using SPSS 21. Data

for the larval consumption and pupal recovery were exposed to assessment

among varieties sample by ANOVA at 95% significance. Data analysis of

variance by computer program statics 8.1.

___________________________________________________________44

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION

In this chapter we present the results and findings of this study. This chapter

provides the new information and findings, which were previously not recorded

in this chapter compared results with earlier findings and discussed the

importance of mango and the attack of fruit fly on mango, one of the main cash

crop of Pakistan in relation to production and varietal susceptibility of mango.

4.1 ECOLOGY

4.1.1 FIELD OBSERVATION

The mangoes were collected from some main mango growing localities of Sindh.

The some mango orchards of Hyderabad (Dr. Muhammad Hassan Pahawnar

research garden), Mirpur khas (Talpur mango fruit forms), Naushahro feroze

(Sayed fruit form (gardens) and some other mango fields in Sangher, Tando

allahayar, Matiari, Khairpur and Sukkur, Sindh, Pakistan were visited time to

time during mango season (2014-2016). The information about sowing and

harvesting season of mangoes had been got from gardeners and farmers during

the field survey. It was observed that growing time /progressive time of mango

depends upon three stages (season period). 1) Blossom 2) Unripe /immature 3)

mature mango/ripened.

The mango fruit season started from mid of January and become end of mid-

October generally in all over Sindh Pakistan, but the mango blossom and

harvesting period starts earlier in to central Sindh as compared to upper Sindh.

The blossom stage of mangoes starts from mid-January to the beginning of April.

Scarcely some early varieties fertilize from mid-December and fertilization

period of some late varieties continues till to mid-April. Spring season enriches

and boosts the blossom process of mangoes. When blossom stage comes to its

end, the immature process begins. The early varieties started from the mid-

March to the end of April. When spring season ends and temperature gradually

increased, the immature mangoes starts grow in their sizes and become fully

___________________________________________________________45

matured mangoes (figure.4.39). The immature or unripe stage of mangoes starts

about beginning in May and continues for the whole month, the earlier varieties

mature earlier about beginning of May in Mirpur khas (central Sindh), immature

mango stage starts in Naushahro feroze (upper Sindh) up to end of May, due to

the climatic variation because Mirpur khas and Hyderabad climatic conditions

totally different from Naushahro feroze. In Mirpur khas and Hyderabad the wind

velocity is high and Spring season is longer and winter season is short during

blossom season, so the blossom period enriches earlier as compared to

Naushahro feroze, As well in upper Sindh winter season is long and during

summer season the temperature raised and dry season occurs so because of this

reason one month mango season late blossoming. Maturity of mangoes is the last

stage of mango season, when they are at the harvesting time. This harvesting

period starts from mid of May to the end of August, in this stage the temperature

of Sindh province of Pakistan rise about 45ºc-50ºc. The Sindhri variety is

harvested about beginning of June up to beginning of July, The Chunsa variety’s

harvesting started from beginning of July and till the end of season. These are

earlier varieties of Sindh, but some late varieties such as Beganpali started from

mid of July-mid of August and Sonara variety is harvested in mid of August up

to beginning of September. In the light of above mentioned knowledge it’s clear

that the mangoes remain available in the market from mid of May to mid of

October in overall Sind but due to this we can get the stored mangoes in the

market up to beginning of November. The varieties of mango in Sindh are more

than 125( Sindh Board of Investment Gov. Of Sindh SBI. 2013); some major

varieties of this king fruit, which were grown mostly in the studied areas (mango

fields) of Sind are Langra, Sindhri, Chunsa, Beganpali, Sonaro, Lal bad shah,

Saroli, Dusheri, Almas, Anwar Ratole, Desi, Salh patau and Neelam. But for

present study I selected four major varieties of Sindh, Sindhri, Chunsa,

Beganpali and Sonaro.

___________________________________________________________46

Figure 4-39 shows the field observation

SINDHRI

Sindhri is the best of all varieties grown-up in Pakistan and called king of

mangoes. The colour of this variety is yellow having greenish lines over its front

side. Sindhri is large in size. It is very sweet, most delicious and having special

kind of fragrance. These qualities make it superior and popular; this is why no

variety is parallel to it. The shelf-life of the variety is longer than most of other

varieties. It has proportionately larger eating mass. Sindhri is a perfect mango.

Sindhri started from beginning of June to late June, it occurs for very short time

period due to this fruit fly attacks chances very rare. It commonly growing in

overall Sindh and it is dominated variety of Sindh province Pakistan. This

variety internationally recognized and included in top 10 varieties of the world it

ranked 7th number.

CHUNSA

Chunsa is most favorite mango, among the late varieties of the country. It has a

unique and appealing aroma; it has a medium size, having average weight of

250gms-350gms. There are so many types of Chunsa variety, mainly in sindh

two varieties white and black Chunsa grown. The color of white Chunsa is plane

yellow having green lines on its front side and Black Chunsa is thick greenish

from node side generally it is found in yellowish attractive color. Chunsa

___________________________________________________________47

harvesting season starts from beginning of July to whole September in Sindh.

This variety runs for long time during season at least for three months, it is lat e

variety but ends in last of season. This availability (time duration) of this variety

take chances of attack to fruit fly. It is dominant variety of Punjab province and

common variety of Sindh. This variety internationally recognized and included

in top 10 varieties of the world and included on 4 th number (fig.4.40.

Figure 4-40 shows the top ten varieties of the world (images.com)

BEGANPALI

Beganpali is late variety of Sindh, mostly It grows in lower sindh such as

Hyderabad, Mirpur khas, Sanghar, Tando Allahayar and Tando Muhammad

Khan. It is obliquely shaped, large in size, it is of shining golden colour, its

average weight about 450-600 grams. The pulp is fibreless, firm with sourer and

sweet taste. Beganpali occurs during (July-August). It also occurs for short time

period. This variety of Sindh occurs during the moon soon weather so there is lot

of chances of fruit fly oviposition, but due to sorer test it is not best survival of

fruit fly progeny.

SONARO

Sonaro is weighty mass winner in mangoes. Its average weight is about one kg or

two pounds, its colour is green. Sonaro comes in August. It grown for very short

___________________________________________________________48

time in upper Sindh. It grows mostly in khairpur and Naushahro feroze in Sindh.

It is excellent for juicing. Due to physical and chemical characteristics. This

variety is not suitable for survival of fruit fly progeny.

Table 4-1 Shows the mango fields (visit during mango season 2014-2016,

blossom season up to ripened fruits), it was observed that beside mango fields,

other crops were also cultivated. Presence of these different types of crops and

fruit seasons beside mango orchards, different pest attacks on this cash fruit,

allocation of the chances of Bactrocera species occurs because different fruit

orchards available in the presence during mango season such as lemon, guava,

Jamoo and Bannana at their climax.

Table 4-1 shows the locality of mango orchards and neighboring crop in

surroundings of study area

Locality name Surrounding areas Cultivated crops

Hyderabad Tando Jam , Sheikh

Barkio , Hattrii, Dr. M.H

research garden , Tando

Muhammad Khan ,

Matiari , Tando

Allahayar and road fields

Vegetables (Began, cabbage,

cucumber, Bitter guard), cotton,

wheat, fodders, and fruit fields such

as Jujube, sapota, papaya, guava,

water melon, berry and Bannana

herbs and shrubs

Mirpur khas Mirpur khas, Digri and

Shujabad

Jamoo (Eugene jambolana), Chiku

(sapodilla), wheat, cotton,

vegetables (cucumber, Bitter gourd)

Naushahro

feroze

Naushahro feroze, Taro

Shah Darbelo, Bhiriya

city, kandiaro,

khanwahan and

Mehrabpur

Bannana, Lemon, Beery, Guava

___________________________________________________________49

4.1.2 FIELD TRAPPING OF FRUIT FLIES (BACTROCERA SPECIES)

Bactrocera species was the most common pest in Sindh and found in the great

number during whole study period (20014 and 2015), especially during the

mango season (June-September). The number of adults’ catches by sex

pheromones (Methyl Eugenol), which were relatively more successful against the

adult male trapping in both localities, Mirpur khas and Naushahro Feroze.

According to result per trap monthly population during 2014 and 2015 in Mirpur

khas. The maximum population was recorded during the month of July 5394 and

6683 fruit flies adults respectively, during two successive mango seasons of

2014 and 2015. More number of adult caches was observed during 2015

(Fig.42), while less number of Bactrocera species in 2014 (Fig. 41) among both

localities in Mirpur khas highest number of Bactrocera dorsalis were observed

during whole study period.

50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Nu

mb

er o

f ad

ult

fl

ies

cap

ture

d p

er t

rap

No. of traps

Jun

July

August

September

Figure 4-41 shows the population of fruit flies Bactrocera species per trap during 2014 in Mirpur khas

51

Figure 4-42 shows the population of fruit flies Bactrocera species per trap in Mirpur khas during 2015

52

Pest population of Bactrocera dorsalis was found in Naushahro feroze

throughout mango season from June-September (2014 and 2015) but it was less

in number as compared to Mirpur khas. Flies were cached through sex

pheromones per- month/ per trap. The total maximum number of fruit flies were

collected in month of July 3906 and 4379. Highest number of fruit flies collected

in 2015 (Fig.44) and minimum number were collected in 2014 (Fig.41)

Maximum number of Bactrocera was captured during July in Naushahro feroze.

In both localities the highest flies’ population were recorded during the month of

July in both years and yearly the highest population was recorded during 2015.

But less number of population was recorded during the month of September and

yearly less population was recorded during 2014. Reason is that during July the

peak of mango season and yearly increase and decrease due to the climatic

conditions.

53

Figure 4-43 shows the population of fruit flies Bactrocera species per trap during 2014 in of Naushahro feroze

54

Figure 4- 44 shows the population of fruit flies Bactrocera species per trap during 2015 in of Naushahro feroze

55

(Fig 4-45) Shows the significantly different (F=29.6, p<0.05) during the study

period in Mirpur khas. The maximum population was recorded in the month of

July and minimum population was recorded in the month of September.

Figure 4-45 shows the month wise population in Mirpur khas

(Fig 4-46) Shows the significantly different (F=41.36, p<0.05) during the study

period in Naushahro Feroze. The maximum population was recorded in the

month of July and minimum population was recorded in the month of September

Figure 4-46 shows the month wise population in Naushahro feroze during 2014-2015

56

Table 4-2 shows the total number of adult flies in both localities were trapped

during 2014 and 2015.The population of fruit flies were significantly different

(ANOVA: F=47.36, P<0.01) in both localities. The maximum number of fruit

flies population 30483 was recorded during both years of study 2014 and 2015 In

Mirpur khas .The minimum number 21970 population of the fruit flies was

recorded during 2014 and 2015 from Naushahro feroze.

Table 4-2 Total number of adult flies in both localities during 2014 and 2015

Year Localities name

Mirpur khas Naushahro feroze

2014 13773 10279

2015 16710 11691

Total 30483 21970

F=47.36, p<0.05

Table 4-3 shows the month wise total mean population of adult flies were

trapped in both localities during month of June-September during two successive

seasons of mango. The maximum mean population of adult flies was recorded in

month of July; during both years of study 2014 and 2015 in both localities .The

minimum mean population was recorded in month of September during 2014 and

2015 in both localities.

Table 4-3 Month wise mean population of Bactrocera species

S.No Month Mean

1 June 193.43

2 July 254.52

3 August 151.35

4 September 56.62

57

Table 4-4 shows the year wise total mean population of adult flies were trapped

in both localities during month of 2014 and 2015.The maximum mean

population of adult flies was recorded during 2015 in both localities .The

minimum mean population was recorded during 2014 both localities.

Table 4-4 shows yearly mean population of adult flies in both years

S. No Year Mean

1 2014 172.16

2 2015 128.7

Table 4-5 shows the locality wise total mean population of adult flies. The

maximum mean population of adult flies was recorded 190.5 in Mirpur khas

locality. The minimum mean population was recorded 137.4 in Naushahro feroze

locality. During two successive seasons of mango 2014 and 2015.

Table 4-5 Locality wise mean Population

S.No Locality name Mean

1 Mirpurkhas 190.5

2 Naushahro Feroze 137.4

Table 4-6 shows the month wise mean population in both localities. The

maximum mean population of adult flies was recorded in month of July 301.90

and 207.1 in Mirpur khas and Naushahro feroze localities respectively. The

minimum mean population was recorded in month of September with mean

61.75 and 51.47 respectively in Mirpur khas and Naushahro feroze localities.

During two successive seasons of mango 2014 and 2015.

58

Table 4-6 Month wise mean population of Bactrocera species among both Localities

S. No Locality name Month Mean

1 Mirpurkhas June 238.8

2 Mirpurkhas July 301.9

3 Mirpurkhas August 159.5

4 Mirpurkhas September 61.75

5 Naushahro feroze June 148.07

6 Naushahro feroze July 207.1

7 Naushahro feroze August 143.12

8 Naushahro feroze September 51.47

The Methyl Eugenol trap caught only male sexes of Bactrocera species. The

total catches adult flies in the two locations during the study period of 2014 and

2015 was 41931, in which 40106 (95.6%) were Bactrocera dorsalis, 800

specimen (4.35 %) were other Bactrocera species. (Table 4-7)

Table 4-7 Total catches of Bactrocera dorsalis and other Bactrocera species in both

localities

Fruit flies species Total number of

flies trapped

No. of flies

(species)

Percentage

(%)

Bactrocera dorsalis

41931

40106 95.6%

Other Bactrocera

species 800 4.35%

59

4.1.3 Metrological observations in Mirpur khas and Naushahro feroze during 2014 and 2015

Table 4-8 shows the Metrological observation in Mirpur khas during 2014-2015

www.timeanddate.com(2014and2015)

S.No Period

Temperature (OC) Humidity

(%)

Rainfall

(mm)

Wind

(Km/hr.) Average Maximum Minimum

2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

1 June 34 33 46 42 28 24 59 60 0.18 0.35 106.8 88.9

2 July 32 32 40 39 23 26 66 68 1.23 11.54 115.8 124.1

3 August 31 30 40 36 26 27 64 69 2.19 0.08 108.2 134.3

4 September 30 31 38 40 25 24 65 63 0.0 4.62 105.16 78.4

http://www.timeanddate.com/

60

Table 4-9 shows the Metrological observation in Naushahro feroze during 2014-2015

S.No Period

Temperature (OC) Humidity

%

Rainfall

(mm)

Wind

(Km/hr.) Average Maximum Minimum

2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015 2014 2015

1 June 36 34 46 46 28 23 54 57 0.15 0.05 23.76 21.73

2 July 34 33 42 42 28 25 64 66 0.27 0.55 15.48 17.22

3 August 32 32 40 38 25 25 68 70 0.0 0.14 16.45 15.54

4 September 31 30 38 40 23 23 68 66 0.38 0.0 17.4 14.4

www.timeanddate.com(2014and2015)

http://www.timeanddate.com/

61

The occurrence of fruit fly coincided with ripening stage of mango fruit, both

adults and larvae caused damage by oviposition injury, feeding and rotting of

fruits by larvae. The peak fruit fly population was observed during the month of

July with mean 254.52 (Table 4-12). A gradually increase in population was

from the fourth week of May and subsequently, declined during the last week of

September with mean values 56.62 (Table 4-12). Correlation studies between

incidence of fruit fly and weather parameters.

Table 4-10 Showing Pearson’s correlation coefficient with population and

weather parameters in Mirpur khas during 2014. The population positively

correlated with temperature r=0.587 (Fig.4-47), rainfall r=0.194 (Fig.4-48) and

wind r=0.773 (Fig.4-49) but negatively correlated with the humidity (-0.064)

(Fig.4-50).

Table 4-10 Showing Pearson correlation coefficient between populations of Bactrocera

species and weather parameters in Mirpur khas during June-Sept 2014.

Parameter Pearson Correlation “r” (p =value)

Av. Temperature (C) .587 .413

Rainfall (mm) .195 .805*

Humidity (%) -.064* .936*

Wind (per-km) .773 .227

*correlation is not significant at the (p> 0.05) with the Rain fall and Humidity

62

Figure 4-47 showing the (Moderate) positively co-relation between average temperature and population of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas during Jun-Sep 2014

Figure 4-48 showing the weak positive correlation between averages Rainfall and

population of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas during Jun-Sept 2014

63

Figure 4-49 shows weak negative correlation between average Humidity and population

of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas during Jun-Sept 2014.

Figure 3-50 shows strong positive correlation between average wind and

population in Mirpur khas during Jun-Sept 2014.

64

Table 3-11 showing Pearson’s correlation coefficient with population and

weather parameters in Mirpur khas during 2015. The population positively

correlated with temperature r=0.81 (Fig.4-51), rainfall r=0.43(Fig.4-52),

humidity r=0.21 (Fig.4-53) and with the wind (0.58) (Fig.4-54).

Table 3-11 Showing Pearson correlation coefficient between population of Bactrocera

species and weather parameters in Mirpur khas during June-Sept 2015


Av.Temperature (ºC) 0.81 0.1

Rainfall (mm) 0.43 0.5

Humidity (%) 0.21 0.7*

Wind (per-km) 0.58 0.5

*correlation is not significant at the (p> 0.05) with the Humidity

65

Figure 3-51 Showing the strong positively co-relation between average

Temperature and population of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas

during Jun-Sept 2015

Figure 3-52 showing the (Moderate) positively co-relation between average rain fall and


66

Figure 4-53 Showing the weak positively co-relation between average humidity and


Figure 4-54 Showing the moderate positively co-relation between average wind velocity

and population of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas during Jun-Sept 2015

67

Table 4-12 showing Pearson’s correlation coefficient with population and

weather parameters in Naushahro feroze during 2014. The population positively

correlated with temperature r=0.66 (Fig.4-55), rainfall r= -0. 45 (Fig.4-56),

humidity r= - 0.37 (Fig.4-57) and with the wind -0.62 (Fig.4-58).

Table 4-12 Showing Pearson correlation coefficient between population of

Bactrocera species and weather parameters in Naushahro Feroze during June-Sept

2014.


Av. Temperature (ºC) 0.66 0.3

Rainfall (mm) -.35 0.6*

Humidity (%) -.37 0.6*

Wind (per-km) -0.62 .93*

*correlation is not significant at the (p> 0.05) with the Humidity, Rainfall and

wind.

68

Figure 4-56 Showing the moderate positively co-relation between average temperature

and population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2014.

Figure 4-57 showing the weak negative co-relation between averages Rainfall and

population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2014

69

Figure 4-58 Showing the weak negative co-relation between average humidity and

Population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2014

Figure 4-59 showing the moderate negative co-relation between average wind velocity

and Population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2014

70

Table 4-13 showing Pearson’s correlation coefficient with population and weather

parameters in Naushahro feroze during 2015. The population positively correlated with

temperature r= 0.77 (Fig.4-60), rainfall r= 0.82 (Fig. 4-61), humidity r= - 0.024 (Fig.4-

62) and with the wind -0.419 (Fig.4-63) June-Sept 2015.

Table 4-13 Showing Pearson correlation coefficient between population of

Bactrocera species and weather parameters in Naushahro Feroze during June-Sept

2015.


Av.Tmperature (ºC) .77 0.2

Rainfall (mm) .824 .176

Humidity (%) -.024 .976*

Wind (per-km) .419 .5

*correlation is not significant at the (p> 0.05) with Humidity

71

Figure 4- 60 Showing the strong positively co-relation between average temperature and


Figure 4-61 showing the strong positive co-relation between average rainfall and

population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2015.

72

Figure 4-62 showing the weak negative co-relation between average humidity and

population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2015.

Figure 4-63 showing the moderate positive co-relation between wind velocity and


73

4.1.4 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ADULT POPULATION OF

BACTROCERA DORSALIS DURING WHOLE STUDY PERIOD,

20014 AND 2015.

Population of adult fruit flies Bactrocera species were monitored for two successive

mango season 2014 and 2015 in two mango growing areas (Mirpur khas and

Naushahro feroze) of Sindh Pakistan; both localities vary in climatic conditions.

Bactrocera species were found for whole the year, which depend upon the host

availabilies there. Different Bactrocera species were observed in mango orchards.

Such as Bactrocera dorsalis, Bactrocera correcta and Bactrocera zonata. Bactrocera

dorsalis is the major pest of mango among the Bactrocera species. It is closest species

in every aspects mode of feeding, emergence and peek population time were same and

population of adult Bactrocera dorsalis was significantly (P<0.05) different in studied

areas during (2014 and 2015). The different sowing time in studied areas and a biotic

factors such as temperature, humidity, rainfall and wind velocity played a vital role,

positively as well as negatively on the population of Bactrocera dorsalis. During

mango season beside mango orchards there was availability of guava, Bannana,

lemon, jamoo and chikhu, due to availability of these fruits during mango season

there is little bit influence or attack of other Bactrocera species on mango orchards.

During present study it was observed that Bactrocera dorsalis is the major pest in

both localities.

These observations revealed that the year wise population of Bactrocera dorsalis

were significantly different between both localities (study areas) during 2014 and

2015(ANOVA: F=47.36, p<0.05) (Table.4-8). The total mean population of

Bactrocera dorsalis was recorded 172.16 and 128.7 respectively during 2014 and

2015 in both localities. The main reason of less population observed during 2014 was

high temperature and very scarcely rain fall (Table 4-10) according to metrological

data. Two years data showed that locality wise adult population of Bactrocera

dorsalis was significantly different (P<0.05) in both localities. The maximum mean

population were recorded 190.5 in Mirpur khas while minimum population was

recorded with men value 137.4 in Naushahro feroze (Table 4-11). There was highest

number of adult fruit flies was capture in all localities during June and July months.

The maximum mean population was recorded 254.52 in the month of July and

74

minimum mean population was recorded 56.62 in September (Table 4-12). we assume

that it is because of three reasons, one is mean population remain high during June

and July in Mirpur Khas and less in Naushahro feroze, due to different in harvesting

time, because one month earlier harvesting season in lower sindh as compared to

upper Sindh, second environmental factors such as rain fall, humidity, temperature

and wind velocity, these factors not only the boosting the host but positively/

negatively correlated with pest population. Third availability of food , because till

September the crop is full matured and fruit flies usually in sindh crop is ready for 1st

and 2nd pick) which make development rate faster so many overlapping generations

appeared. The metrological data of two years in both localities of Sindh Pakistan,

clearly shows the reasons of proliferation and decline of population. The correlation

studies between incidence of fruit flies and weather parameters (Table 4-16, 4-17,4-18

and 4-19 respectively). During 2014 the population of both study areas were less as

compared to 2015, main reason is that the; the temperature significantly (p<0.05)

positively correlated in both localities during both years 2014 and 2015. Humidity

was not significantly correlated in both localities, in Naushahro feroze it was strongly

negative but in Mirpur khas it was weekly positive but not significantly (p>0.05)

correlate. While the rainfall was positive correlated but not significantly during 2014

in Mirpur khas but in Naushahro feroze significantly (p >0.05) negatively correlated.

During 2015 in both localities rainfall was significantly (p< 0.05) positive correlated.

During 2014 and 15 the wind velocity positively correlated in Mirpur khas but during

2014 it is negatively correlated in Naushahro feroze while in 2015 it is significant

(p<0.05) positively correlated. Due to the influence of temperature, rainfall and

humidity and wind velocity the variation in population in both localities during both

years. The rain fall and humidity forms positive effects of incidence of fruit fly in

Mirpur khas locality wise and year wise in 2015.

75

4.2 BIOLOGY

4.2.1 LIFE CYCLE OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS

The life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis were observed and determined developmental

time period on four varieties of mango (Chunsa, Sindhri Beganpali and Sonaro). The

larvae were collected from infested mangoes and were kept in rearing cages on

different varieties in laboratory under controlled conditions (26◦c±28◦c temperature

and humidity 60%-65%). Bactrocera dorsalis has maximum developmental time of

the complete life cycle was 23-25 days with mean time 22.23±0.21 days on Sonora

variety but on the remaining other three varieties developmental time was more / less

same , there were minimum life cycle time was recorded on Chunsa variety was 15-

16 days with mean value 16.8±0.086 days. The complete life cycle the time period on

Sindhri and Beganpali varieties was almost same 18-19 days with mean values

(18.72±0.72 and 18.29±0.33 days, respectively) (Table.4-14). This little bit variation

in development of life cycle because of quality of nutrients in the varieties such as

sugar and other nutrients of mango and may be food availability and the

environmental conditions effect. (figure.4.64)

Figure 4-64 shows the life cycle of Bactrocera dorsalis (Biology)

76

Table 4-14 Life cycle of Bactrocera dorsalis observed on different four varieties of mango

Host Temperature

ºC

Humidity

%

Incubation

Period

(days)

Larvae

periods

(days)

Pupal

(days)

Adult life

span

(days)

Complete life

cycle

(days)

Sex

ratio

♂ :

♀ Male Female

Chunsa

26◦c±28◦c 55-65

1.5±0.02 6.51±0.2 8.8±0.46 45.1±1.79 48.1±2.1 16.8±0.09 1:3

Sindhri 2.32±0.16 7.5±0. 16 8.9±0.40 37.4±4.27 38.4±4.2 18.72±0.72 1:3

Beganpali 2.39±0.01 7.4±0.16 8.5±0.16 34±3.33 35 ± 2.2 18.29±0.33 1:3

Sonaro 2.51±0.87 11.53±1.35 8.5±0.95 35.2±2.58 38.25±1.6 22.23±0.21 1:3

77

INCUBATION

Results indicate that the maximum incubation period is 2-3 days. The maximum

incubation period on Sonaro, Sindhri and Beganpali was almost the same with average

values (2.51±0.87, 2.32±0.16 and 2.39±0.01 days, respectively) and the minimum

time period of incubation was recorded 1.5±0.02 days on Chunsa (Table 4-14).

Other researcher’s also was same findings [60] reported that all the Fruit flies incubation

period 2-3 days or 24-36 hours during the entire summer season and incubation period

of Bactrocera dorsalis eggs was 2-20 days; [34] eggs of Bactrocera dorsalis hatch

within 1-3 days. [162] states that B. dorsalis eggs hatch within one day (during

winter season its maximum time is 20 days. [164] eggs stage of Bactrocera

dorsalis (Handle) that hatch within one or half day.

LARVAE

The most injurious stage for mango fruit is the larvae, which mostly affects the pulp of

mango. Bactrocera dorsalis was three larval instars, after emergence from eggs, 1st

instar larval are in resting stage, 2nd instar larvae are slightly move in pulp of mango and

3rd instar is injurious, third instar fully grown, rapidly move and make the holes in peel

and jumping out from the fruits, The development of larvae was recorded on controlled

conditions, (26◦c±28◦c) temperature and humidity (60%-65%), Larvae fully grow in 10

-13 days, on a normal temperature. In Sindh it is during May to October (that is main

season of Mango fruit in Pakistan). June to August is severe by damaging for the mango

fruit; during these months, maximum infestation occurs within a huge population of fruit

fly because during these months the availability of host fruit (mango) in peek. The

temperature is high and the monsoon weather starts in the July-August in Sindh, the pest

population has favorable climatic conditions as well as the food availability, all these

things are the positive feature for the pest. The development of Larvae was faster, took

minimum time on Chunsa variety 4-6 days with average value 6.51±0.2 days and

maximum time occurred on Sonaro variety was 11-13 (11.53±1.35) days (Table-

4-20). The Beganpali and Sindhri variety almost same larval development time

(7.5±0.16 and 7.4±0.16 days, respectively) (Table-4-14). There were no significant

difference between the larval development of Chunsa, Beganpali and Sindhri varieties

rapid development occurred within 5-9 days, but in Chunsa and Sonaro variety, There

was a significant difference in development of larval time (P<0.05).[34]fruit fly larvae

78

fed for 9-35 days fruit fly. [60] reported that larvae and pupae developmental time 2-4

weeks. [164]stated that Bactrocera dorsalis possessed 3 larval stages or instars

whole larval period lasts for 11-15 days.

PUPAE

Fully grown larvae were converted into pupae. The pupal stage is a resting stage in

which development of fruit fly takes place. Before converting into pupae, fully grown

larvae stopped feeding and buried them in soil into the resting position. The overall

shortest developmental time for pre-pupation under controlled conditions was

(26◦c±28◦c and humidity 60%-65%). The Overall period of pupation on all four

varieties was 7-9 days (Table-4-14). As findings shows that pupariating is in the soil

under the host plant and adults emerge after 1-2 weeks (longer in cool conditions) and

adults occur throughout year [34].According to [39] pupation period lasts for 7-10 days.

[164] reported that full grown larvae pupate in soil and last 9-10 days

developmental time. [60] all flies Pupae developmental time was 10-44 days.

DURATION OF LIFE CYCLE OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS

Life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis observed and determined developmental time period

on four varieties of mango. The Bactrocera dorsalis is maximum developmental time

was 22-23 days on Sonora variety with average value, which was highest developmental

time when compared to other three varieties and on Chunsa variety the time was

minimum at 16-17 days with average values 16.8±0.086 days, but in Beganpali and

Sindhri almost equal time period of the life cycle 18.72±0.72, 18.29±0.33

respectively. As we have observed on four varieties of mango individually life stage of

Bactrocera dorsalis (Table. 4-14).

ADULT LIFE SPAN OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS (LONGEVITY) ON

DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF MANGO

At the time of emergence, the adults were provided with four different varieties

of mango for observing the life span. There were no significant differences

(P>0.05) on four varieties, on Chunsa variety the male and female survive for

45-48 days with mean value 45.1±1.79 and 48.1±2.1 respectively, least life span was

on the Sonaro variety with the male and female life span being 23-25 days with average

79

values 23.2±2.58 and 25.25±1.6, but in sindhri and Beganpali variety there were no

significant differences in life span of male and female. (Table. 4-15). The female fruit fly

lives longer than the male. According to [60] findings suggest those adult life spans

about 300 days, or more.

MATING AND OVIPOSITION

Usually the mating time of the Bactrocera dorsalis started from sunset; males

expand their wings and pursue the females one hour before the sunset, Males fan

their wings and come close to the female, once they detected the female in their

territory. Mating couples remain paired throughout the night and separate at

sunrise. The mating time of Bactrocera dorsalis is about 9-10 hr with average

9.27±0.82hr (Table-4-15). The pre-oviposition period varied from 13-14 days

13.55±1.33days (Table.14). The oviposition period ranged from 20-22 days

(21.46±1.42 days) (Table. 15).

FECUNDITY

After 2-3 days of emergence, adult start mating. Female lays eggs in cluster

forms in the pulp of mango at least six eggs in one attempt (by the ovipositor) to

puncture the skin of the mango. The egg laying capacity of a sexually mature

adult female is 14-15 per day (14.32±2.27) (Table.4-15). Hatching percentage

was 75%-80% with average (77.31±1.97) (Table.15).The variations in

oviposition rate may be affected due to different cultivars of mango, or due to

some physical parameters such as ripened and unripen fruits as well as the size

of peel thickness and color. [60] fruit flies mature within 2 days and start mating,

female lays eggs under the skin of mangoes by ovipositor, puncture the fruits and

lain the eggs in cluster form each cluster having 2-15 eggs, Bactrocera dorsalis

lays 1200-1500 eggs during its entire span [164] reported Females begin to lay

eggs about 8 days, after emergence from the pupation. Under controlled

conditions a female can lay more than 3,000 eggs during her li fetime, but under

field conditions approximately 1200 to 1500 eggs per female is considered to be

the usual production.

80

SEX RATIO

The newly emerged adults were examined by presence and absence of ovipositor.

The sex ratio was 1-3 average 1.17±2.07 (male: female) (Table 4-15). The

differences in sex ratio are clearly visible because female emergence is higher

than male. Sex ratio may be affected by environmental fluctuations or food

availability, and may be its natural phenomena.

Table 4-15 showing the time period of different developmental stages of

Bactrocera dorsalis on mango Varieties

Developmental Stage Jun-August

Range Mean±Sd

Egg (incubation period)(days) 1-2 1.61±0.51

1st instar (days) 2-3 2.69±0.48

2nd instar (days) 4-5 4.5±0.55

3rd instar (days) 3-2 2.75±0.54

Complete larval period (days) 8-10 9.97±2.25

Pre-pupae (days) 1-2 2.07±0.86

Pupae period (days) 8-9 8.52±0.88

Mating Period (Hours) 9-10 9.27±0.82

Pre-oviposition (days) 13-14 13.55±1.33

oviposition (days) 20-22 21.46±1.42

Fecundity 14-15 14.32±2.27

Hatching % 75-80 77.31±1.97

Sex ratio(♂ : ♀) 1-3 1.17±2.07

Temperature ºc 26-31 29.56±1.83

Humidity % 55-65 58.69±4.1

81

4.2.2 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF DIFFERENT LIFE

STAGES

EGGS

The eggs of Bactrocera dorsalis were white, shiny, rice shaped and slightly

curved into elongated tapering at anterior and posterior end. The eggs lay in

cluster form, which are embedded in the pulp of fruit vertically or slightly angled

and twisting with each other (Fig.4-64). Morphometric study exposed that the

size of egg, such as length of egg, varied from 0.5mm-0.6mm with mean of

0.54±0.11mm and width 0.1-0.3mm with mean 0.19±0.08mm (Table-4-16). Egg

Laying and hatching period is 1-2 days with average 1.61 ± 0.51 days (Table-4-

15).

Figure 4-64 Egg

82

LARVAE

The larvae of B.dorsalis passes three instars, 1st, 2nd and 3rd larval instars with

different Morphometric and developmental time period.

1ST INSTAR LARVAE

After the hatching of the eggs, the 1st instar was emerged elongated, cylindrical

transparent and creamy/ white in color (fig.65). Mouth (proboscis) prominent with

black mark, with length 1-2mm (2.6±0.75mm) and width 0.2-0.4mm

(0.27±0.82mm) (Table.4-16). Developmental time of 1st instar was 2-3 days

(2.90±0.48) (Table.4-15)

Figure 4-65 1st instar

83

2ND INSTAR LARVAE

The 2nd instar was elongated in shape and creamy in color. Another

distinguishing characteristic of 2nd instar was the presence of externally visible

alimentary canal (fig 4-66), the 2nd instar’s length was 5-6mm (0.55±5.88), and

width 2-3 (2.34±0.78mm) (Table 4-16).They start feeding on the pulp of mango

fruit rapidly. The developmental time period of the 2 rd instar larvae was found to

be 4-5 days with average value (4.5±0.55) (Table.4-15).

Figure 4-66 2nd instar

84

3RD INSTAR LARVAE

The fully grown 3rd instar larvae had some visible characters; cylindrical,

elongated, creamy colour with pointed head well-developed mandibles, hooks,

spiracles on both anterior and posterior side of body and black mole on anterior

and caudal side (fig.4-72). The 3rd instars’ length 7-8mm (7.68±0.72mm) and

width 3-4mm (3.58±0.25mm) (Table.4-16).The developmental time period of 3 rd

instar was 3-2 days with mean values 2.75±0.54 (Table 4-15). Complete

developmental of larvae from 1st instar to 3rd instar was 8-10 days with average

9.97±2.25 days (Table 4-15). 3rd instar larvae was very injurious because they

rapidly feed on the pulp of fruits, They made the fruit juicy, pulpy and made tunnels in

pulp and holes into the fruit peel to come out of the fruit for pupation. After leaving

the fruit they buried themselves in soil for pupal formation.

Figure 4-67 3rd instar larvae

85

PRE- PUPAL STAGE

The mature larvae of 3rd instar was slightly curved in position, it became

slothful, stopped feeding and remained inactive for different activities except

metabolically. According to morph, these are yellowish in color with ring

structure appearance (fig.4-68). The size of pre-pupae was 2-3mm as average

2.93±0.49m and Width 2-4mm with average 3.89±0.20mm (Table4-16)

Developmental period was 1-2 days (Table.4-15). Fig. showing the Pre-pupal

period of Bactrocera dorsalis.

Figure 4-68 Pre-pupal

86

PUPAE

The Pupae emerged segmented and cylindrically hard, dark brown capsule

(fig.4-69), The length was 4-5mm with average (4.47±0.64mm) and width 2-

3mm with average (2.69±0.16 mm) (Table-4-16). Duration of pupae stage varied

from 8 to 9 days with mean 8.52±0.88 (Table.4-15). Fig. showing the pupal

period of Bactrocera dorsalis.

Figure 4-69 Pupae

87

ADULT

The Adult flies were emerged from pupae within 8.9 days in early morning from

7.00 to 10.00 A.M. The adults of Bactrocera dorsalis have flower like crown on

head, it is distinguish character for recognition because other Bactrocera species

adults have antennae on head. The females were easily recognized by the head

with black dot, scutilium was black and yellow stripes, wings with black color,

brown black thorax, the abdomen tapered shape with yellow stripes, distinct

black 'T'-shaped mark and most distinguish morph character pointed pin like

ovipositor (Fig.4-70), length 8-9mm(9.79±0.53mm) and width 12-13mm

(13.98±0.27mm) (Table-4-16). The male is dark brown with black stripes on

abdomen. The scutelium is completely black. Male is slightly shorter than female

(Fig.4-71), length 7-8mm (8.65±0.58mm) and width 9-11mm with average

(10.34±1.18mm) (Table. 4-16).

Figure 4-70 Male Figure 4-71 Female

88

Table 4-16 shows the Morphometric characteristics of different life stages of

Bactrocera dorsalis

Developmental

Stages

Length (mm) Width (mm)

Range Mean±Sd Range Mean±Sd

Egg 0.5-0.6 0.54±0.11 0.1-0.3 0.19±0.08

1st instar 1-2 2.6±0.75 0.2-0.4 0.27±0.82

2nd instar 5-6 0.55±5.88 2-3 2.34±0.78

3rd instar 7-8 7.69±0.72 3-4 3.58±0.25

Pre-pupae 2-3 2.93±0.49 2-4 3.89±0.20

Pupae 4-5 4.47±0.64 2-3 2.69±0.16

Male ♂ 7-8 8.65±0.58 9-11 10.34±1.18

Female ♀ 8-9 9.79±0.53 12-13 13.98±0.27

*The results represents the mean ±Sd of 10 specimen of each developmental stage

4.3.3 THE SURVIVAL % OF DIFFERENT LIFE STAGES OF

BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON FOUR VARIETIES OF MANGO

Present study reveals that maximum survival % occurs on 3 rdinstar and pupae

and minimum survival was observed on egg and 1st instar Table 4-21. Study of

biology reveals that the larvae and eggs of Bactrocera dorsalis are very sensitive

and vulnerable at the 1st instar. Table 4-21 shows the comparison of the survival of all

life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis on four varieties of mango, the highest adults survive

on Chunsa variety 68 % and the lowest survival of adults on Sonaro variety was 25%.

The pupal survivals on all varieties were significantly different. The 2nd and third instar

larvae were significantly different (p<0.05). The maximum survival of 2nd and 3rdinstar

were on Chunsa variety (94.82%, 97.27%), the minimum survival on 2nd and 3rd instar

(70%, 71.25%, respectively) on Sonaro variety. The maximum egg survival on Chunsa

variety was 83.2 %, and minimum was 78% on Sonaro variety. (Fig.4-72). Present study

reveals that the best survival medium for all life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis was

Chunsa, when as compared to other three varieties.

89

Table 4-17. Survival % of different Life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis on Chunsa

variety

*Table 4-23 indicates that highest mortality was recorded in eggs 16.8% while

lowest 1.6% of mortality was recorded pupae in Chunsa variety

Table 4-18 Survival % of different Life table of Bactrocera dorsalis on Sindhri

variety

Life stages Total

numbers

No.of

Mortality

Mortality % Percentage

of

survival %

Egg 250 50 20 80

1stinstar larvae 200 48 24 60.8

2ndinstar larvae 152 15 22.69 54.8

3rdinstar larvae 137 10 7.29* 50.8

Pupae 127 6 4.72* 52.4

Adult 121 - - -

Table 4-24 indicates that highest mortality was recorded in 1st instar 24%

While lowest 4.72% of mortality was recorded pupae in Sindhri variety

Life stages

No.of each

stage for

rearing

Number of dying

during each stage

Percentage

of

Mortality

percentage

of survival

Egg 250 42 16.8% 83.2%

1stinstar Larvae 208 15 7.21% 77.2%

2ndinstar larvae 193 10 5.18% 73.2%

3rd instar larvae 183 5 2.73%* 71.2%

Pupae 178 3 1.68%* 70%

Adult 170 - - -

90

Table 4-19 Survival % of different life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis on Beganpali

variety

Table 4-19 indicates that highest mortality was recorded in egg 22.4% while

lowest 12.09 % of mortality was recorded pupae in Beganpali variety

Table 4-20 Survival % of different life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis on

sonora variety

Life stage Total No. No mortality % of mortality % of survival

Egg 250 55 22 78

1stinstar larvae 195 45 23.07 60

2ndinstar larvae 150 45 30 40

3rd instar 105 30 28.75 30

Pupae 75 12 16* 25.2

Adult 63 - -

Table 4-20 indicates that highest mortality was recorded in egg 22% while

lowest 16% of mortality was recorded pupae in Sonaro variety.

Life stages Total

numbers

Number of

Mortality

percentage of

Mortality

percentage of

survival

Egg 250 56 22.4% 77.6

1stinstar larvae 194 27 13.91 67.6

2ndinstarlarvae 169 25 14.79% 57.6

3rdinstar larvae 144 20 13.88 49.6

Pupae 124 15 12.09* 43.6

Adult 109 - -

91

Table 4-21 Comparison of survival rate of Bactrocera dorsalis on four varieties

Life stages % of

survival on

Chunsa

% of survival

on

Sindhri

% survival on

Beganpali

% of survival

on Sonaro

Egg 83.2 80 77.6 78

1st instar 92.79 80 86.09 76.93

2nd instar 94.82 77.31 85.21 70

3rd instar 97.27 92.71 86.12 71.25

Pupae 98.32* 95.28 87.09 84

Adult 68% 48.4% 43.6 25.2

Figure 4-72. Showing the survival (%) of different life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis on

four mango

92

4.3 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF MANGO VARIETIES

Mango is important fruit of summer season. It is very tasty, delicious and full of

nutrients. Present study of susceptibility was carried out in mango growing season

(May –October) 2013-2015 on four commercial varieties of mango such as Chunsa,

Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro, these varieties are famous because of their test and

texture, which are cultivated at large scale in Sindh province. During present study we

have observed different parameters of mango varieties to find out a reason of

attractant of fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis, beside Bactrocera dorsalis other

Bactrocera species such as B.correcta, B.zonata were also found in mango (orchards)

fields, but there were no noticeable infestation was recorded. Following Parameters

are play vital role to attract the fruit fly. The Physical and Biochemical characteristics

of mangoes are sufficient to attract the fruit fly for attack at them. Physical

parameters like colour, surface texture, Peel thickness, length of fruit and soft ripened

fruits are the source of attraction for fruit fly to be attracted. It is necessary to study on

external appearance of fruit as well as chemical (Bio-Chemical) parameters such as

sugar (carbohydrates), acidity, pH, Moisture, Ash (nutrients of any fruit). Which are

helpful in the development and growth of the pest. In fact the sugar is important

component to energize the development of fruit fly progeny. It is observed that acidity

does not attract fruit fly to attack and it is not helpful for the development of pest.

This is why the unripe fruits are always safe, not damaged and attacked due to acidity.

Female fruit fly observes the favorable characteristics of fruit then starts its egg lays

[77]. The fruit flies recognize / observe the characteristics like Physical and chemical

parameters. It measures the qualities of fruit mentioned above are in its favor are not

[143]and [199]. This study is based on the findings of susceptibility varieties and

observed physical and biochemical parameters for the oviposition preferences and

offspring performance of fruit flies. Fruit fly lays the eggs in fruits by ovipositor

(needle like characteristics). Fruit flies mostly like the ripen and soft fruits which are

not only easy in puncturing but they are favorable for the progressive stage of

progeny. Physical parameters are the best reasons of the oviposition performance.

First we determine Physical parameters of four varieties which attract the pest towards

the host for oviposition. Colour, surface texture, shape, peel thickness, length of fruit,

ripe and unripe characters. The Physical parameter is attractant of the pest for the

preference of oviposition, as the fruit fly like soft and tender fruits for oviposition.

93

4.3.1 PHYSICAL PARAMETERS

COLOUR AND SURFACE TEXTURE

Chunsa is of attractive golden and bright yellow colour. The surface texture of

the Chunsa variety is very smooth and tender in Puncturing. The Sindhri variety

is of attractive yellowish colour and it has smooth texture which is puncturing

easily. Beganpali is of golden yellow color and greenish colour mixed, it has

smooth texture. Sonaro variety is of greenish in colour having a smooth texture

(Table 4-22).

Table 4-22 showing the different physical Characteristics of mango

No. of mangoes Name of Varieties Colour Surface

texture

10 Chunsa Yellow Smooth

10 Sindhri Green yellow Smooth

10 Beganpali Golden Smooth

10 Sonaro Green Smooth

LENGTH AND PEEL THICKNESS OF MANGO FRUIT

The size of fruit is one of the attractive parameters for the oviposition of fruit fly Bactrocera

dorsalis. There is inseparable relationship between host preference (oviposition) and

performance (development of larvae). The fly not only detects the place where it easily

punctures, but it also prefers the size of the fruit for its progeny survival and movement.

The size and shape of sindhri is rounded and long, Beganpali is diagonal and began shaped,

this mango is of large sized and heavy weighted. Chunsa variety is mostly found in medium

size, Sonar variety of sindh heavy weight champion in mangoes about one to two pond

weight content and weight wise it is No.1 in Pakistani mango varieties. Data regarding fruit

length of mango varieties, the mango varieties Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonara

significantly different (F=262.54, p<0.05) length, the Sindhri variety highest length with

(135.93±7.7mm) followed by the Beganpali (69.09±1.04mm), Chunsa (105.38±2.5mm)

and Sonaro variety (94.2 ±1.4mm) (Table4-23). [192]same findings were reported, Sindhri

13.47 cm length and Chunsa had (10.27mm[145]reported the length of Beganpali 10.5

mm, Chunsa 13.4mm which is related to my findings.

94

Peel thickness is physical parameter which plays important role in the oviposition of the

fruit fly. Thin peel is easy is in attempting oviposition and for the survival of progeny,

when the 3rdinstar gets full growth then it tries to make holes in peel to come out from the

fruit for pupation. For the pupation phase, the Adults of the Bactrocera dorsalis again try

to locate use both visual and chemical cues to locate the hosts and oviposition sites. There

were significant difference (F=13994.8, p<0.05) in the peel thickness among the varieties,

Sonara had the highest peel thickness 1.169± 0.01mm (Table-24), while the Chunsa was

least peel thickness 0.32 ±0.00mm (Table-24), But the Sindhri and Beganpali had no

significant variation (p>0.05) its peel thickness 0.37± 0.01mm, 0.62 ± 0.00 (Table 4-30).

Chunsa variety is more susceptible variety as compare to other varieties. According to

[170]);[106] peel thickness is the major factor to preserve the pulp of the fruits against

egg lagging behavior of fruit flies. Same result was reported by [189] on local mango

varieties of Africa, such as Keith, (0.17cm) had highest peel thickness and Kent was the

highest thinnest peel (0.13cm), Kent was the most susceptible variety of mango

Table 4-23 showing the length (mm) of mango varieties

S.No Chunsa

(mm)

Sindhri

(mm)

Beganpali

(mm)

Sonaro

(mm)

1 102.7 128 86.3 94.7

2 105.7 134.7 85.25 95.6

3 106.5 144.7 85.31 92.4

4 108.5 144.5 86.5 93.85

5 102.5 139.7 86.25 91.23

6 102.6 131.3 86.65 95.6

7 107.6 121.3 86.75 94.25

8 109.4 134.7 85.78 94.1

9 103.6 144.8 88.78 95.15

10 104.7 135.6 85.32 95.5

Mean±Sd 105.38± 2.56 135.93 ±7.77 69.09± 1.04 94.23 ±1.45

p<0.05 F =262.54 CV =4.03

95

Table 4-24 showing the Peel thickness (mm) of mango varieties

S.No Chunsa

(mm)

Sindhri

(mm)

Beganpali

(mm)

Sonara

(mm)

1 0.32 0.38 0.61 1.17

2 0.34 0.37 0.62 1.17

3 0.33 0.38 0.63 1.15

4 0.32 0.35 0.62 1.18

5 0.34 0.39 0.63 1.19

6 0.32 0.38 0.62 1.17

7 0.31 0.37 0.62 1.16

8 0.32 0.39 0.61 1.15

9 0.32 0.39 0.61 1.17

10 0.33 0.37 0.63 1.18

Mean±Sd 0.32 ±0.00 0.37± 0.01 0.62 ± 0.008 1.16± 0.01

p<0.05 F= 13994.8 CV = 1.66

RIPE AND UNRIPE MANGOES

In Pakistan ripe mangoes recognized by their appearance, colour and pulp when they

look like lemon yellow and soft pulpy in touching. When Chunsa is reaching its maturity

in first it looks like lemon yellowish but when it fully ripe its colour changes in to

golden yellowish color then it becomes soft, fibreless pulpy, aromatic pleasant

and sweetest flavor. When Sindhri is mature it looks like lemon yellowish when

it is fully ripe its color looks golden yellowish it becomes sweat in taste,

fibreless and pulpy. When Beganpali is mature it looks like lemon yellow, when

it is fully ripe its colour changes into golden yellowish. It is fibreless, sourer

sweet and having firm pulp. Sonara variety changes from the Chunsa Sindhri and

Beganpali. When it is mature its color remains green, but it feels soft and pulpy

in touching. It is fibrous pulpy and less sweet in taste. These varieties have a

unique taste and richness in their flavor, which make them a worldwide favorite.

Overall these varieties having unique characteristics like rich aroma, bright

96

colour, softness, sweet taste, juicy pulp and high nutritional values. All the above

mentioned characteristics are preferred by the fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis mostly.

The Chunsa variety colour is bright yellow followed by the sindhri and Beganpali, there

are greater chances and attempts of oviposition on these varieties as compare to the

Sonaro variety, because ripe fruits mostly of yellow color, these ingridience are more

attractive for the fruit flies. The fruit fly attacks to ripe fruits. Softness of mango plays

important role in the fruit fly preference (oviposition) and performance (offspring

development). When the mangoes are ripe, fruit fly easily identifies. The ripe fruit

attracts the fruit fly at this time for its oviposition. Now the ripe fruit is easily punctured

due to its soft skin and pulp. Softness of fruit pulp provides survival medium of fruit

fly progeny. The fruit flies not attracted to the unripe fruit because greenish in color and

having hard texture, which is not easy for puncturing by ovipositor and having hard

Pulp, which is not suitable medium of survival for juveniles. According [170]fruit

ripeness is important influent for fruit fly oviposition. [165] reported that fruit flies egg

and larval development rate increase in ripe fruits more than in unripe fruits. The relation

between preferences of oviposition females for certain fruits such as mango varieties and

growth, survival and reproduction of offspring (larval Performance) on mango has been

a central problem in the theory of Pest/host interaction. These mango varieties are

susceptible by fruit fly due to the development, growth and survival of their progeny

inside the pulp. Fruit flies always prefer the suitable host. This is required for their

developmental stages.

4.3.2 BIO- CHEMICAL PARAMETERS

This Present study was conducted observed and analyzed on the biochemical ingredients

of mango varieties such as Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro. The Biochemical

ingredients such as Sugar (reducing and non-reducing, Acidity, pH, moisture and Ash.

these biochemical parameters attractants for the fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis. These Bio

chemical parameters play important role in the various phases of development of fruit

fly.

TOTAL SUGAR

The sugar is important component for energize and source of development of

offspring of fruit fly and play vital role in the performance of pest (fruit fly).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taste

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juice_vesicles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritional

97

Total sugar is the key factor and attractant of the fruit fly. During present study

we found two factors of sugar reducing and non-reducing sugar in these mango

varieties. Table 4-25 shows the significant difference among these varieties

(F=91.64, p<0.05). It was observed that the total sugar in the Chunsa variety

(16.189%) followed by sindhri 14.94%, Beganpali 13.97 % and Sonaro 11.485%.

The above study and observations show that the Chunsa variety has significant

maximum level than the others and the Sonaro variety has a minimum level of

sugar among these varieties. [192] reported the Samar Bahisht Chunsa (20.34%)

and Black Chunsa (19.00%). which is related to our findings, also Sindhri

contained (16.00%), [145]reported that Chunsa contained maximum 16.5 %,

Beganpali 15.2% these findings are also parallel to our findings. [39]reported

immature mangoes’ sugar level in Chunsa 4.99% and Sindhri variety 6.99%.

Table 4-25. Showing the total sugar in the mango varieties

S.No Chunsa

(%)

Sindhri

(%)

Beganpali

(%)

Sonaro

(%)

1 16 14.84 14.4 13.02

2 16.5 15.3 14.5 13

3 15.98 15.34 14.8 11.23

4 15.95 14.62 13.11 11.23

5 16.2 15.25 14.12 12.25

6 16.4 14.67 13.15 12.95

7 16.4 14.72 13.17 13.1

8 15.93 14.8 14.16 13.11

9 15.93 14.78 14.18 13.12

10 16.6 15.15 14.17 13.07

Mean±Sd 16.18±0.26 14.94±0.28 13.97±0.61 11.48±0.76

p<0.05 F 91.64 CV 3.47

98

REDUCING SUGAR

Table 4-26 Showing the significant difference (F= 49.07, p>0.05) in reducing sugar

among these mango varieties Chunsa variety contains maximum reducing sugar

5.14%,Sindhri variety contains 4.57% Beganpali 4.29% and Sonaro 3.95%. The

Chunsa variety differs from the other three varieties. According to previous

study [39]had reported about these varieties which are nearly parallel to our

findings in immature mango fruits (Chunsa variety reducing sugar 1.90 % and

Sindhri 2.78% immature mangoes).

Table 4-26 showing the reducing sugar in mango varieties

S.No Chunsa

(%)

Sindhri

(%)

Beganpali

(%)

Sonaro

(%)

1 5.3 4.6 4.3 4.4

2 5.02 4.59 5 3.65

3 4.96 4.55 4.12 3.72

4 5.02 4.52 4.21 4.2

5 5.5 4.58 4.25 3.95

6 5.12 4.55 4.27 4.23

7 5.15 4.56 4.25 3.56

8 4.87 4.62 4.18 3.85

9 4.89 4.63 4.15 3.95

10 5.6 4.56 4.19 4.06

Total 5.14±0.25 4.576±0.03 4.29±0.25 3.95±0.27

p<0.05 F= 49.07 CV =5.05

99

NON REDUCING SUGAR

Table 4-27 Showing the significant difference (F=47.54, p<0.05) in non-reducing

sugar among mango varieties. Chunsa variety contains maximum non-reducing

sugar (10.88%), the sindhri 9.71%, and Beganpali 9.29%, and Sonaro variety

8.34%. Chunsa differs from the three other varieties. According to pervious

study [39]has reported which is controversial Chunsa variety non-reducing sugar

4.86 % and Sindhri 4.24%. It is controversial with our findings, he worked on

unripe fruits and we have worked on ripe mangoes.

Table 4-27 showing the non-reducing sugar in the mango

S.No Chunsa

(%)

Sindhri

(%)

Beganpali

(%)

Sonaro

(%)

1 11.6 9.42 8.93 8.36

2 10.55 10.45 9.1 8.32

3 11.6 10.2 9.94 8.32

4 10.16 10.18 9.15 8.3

5 11.01 9.4 9.05 8.23

6 10.45 9.34 9.05 9.02

7 11.02 9.3 8.98 8.27

8 10.45 9.55 9.84 8.3

9 10.95 10.15 9.05 9.07

10 11.08 9.18 9.86 7.22

Mean±Sd 10.88±0.48 9.71± 0.47 9.29± 0.40 8.34±0.50

p<0.05 F= 47.54 CV= 5.06

100

ACIDITY

Ripe mangoes attract fruit flies. Fruit flies reject unripe fruit due to acidity and

sourer in test. This is why we have worked on acidity and pH of the mango. We

found the negative role of Acidity against the favor of fruit fly. While pH has a

positive role in the favor of fruit flies. Fruit flies do not attack unripe mangoes

due to their acidity and sourer test while they attack the ripe mangoes due to pH

and sweet test. Table 4-28 shows the significance difference (F=332.70, p<0.05)

of acidity level among these mango verities. This table shows that the ripe

mangoes have a very) mangoes had less quantity of acidity, due to the maximum

level of sugar. Chunsa variety contains minimum acidity of 0.28%, Sindhri of

0.36%, Beganpali of 0.48 % and the Sonaro variety of 0.50%. In result the

Chunsa variety has minimum acidity due to maximum level of Sugar. While the

Sonaro variety has a maximum acidity as compared to others having low level of

Sugar. [192]had reported the Samar Bahisht Chunsa 0.12% and Black Chunsa

0.29%, and Sindhri 0.49% but our research work findings differ from these

results, because due to soil difference and climatic conditions.

Table 4-28 showing the Acidity of mango varieties

S.No Chunsa

(%)

Sindhri

(%)

Beganpali

(%)

Sonaro

(%)

1 0.28 0.39 0.49 0.55

2 0.32 0.38 0.48 0.52

3 0.26 0.42 0.49 0.58

4 0.3 0.41 0.47 0.58

5 0.31 0.39 0.5 0.57

6 0.25 0.41 0.48 0.56

7 0.31 0.42 0.49 0.55

8 0.32 0.38 0.46 0.58

9 0.27 0.39 0.49 0.58

10 0.27 0.37 0.48 0.56

Mean ± Sd 0.28±0.02 0.36 ±0.01 0.48± 0.01 0.50±0.01

p<0.05 F=332.70 CV= 4.7

101

pH.

Table 4-29 Shows significant difference of pH level among these varieties

(F=384.88, p<0.05) the ripe mangoes contains highest level of pH. The Chunsa

variety contains pH 5.48. Sindhri contains pH 4.56. Beganpali contains pH 3.66,

and Sonara contains 2.5. According to this table it is clear that the variety

contains maximum level of pH is the sweetest. The sugar and pH is positively

correlated, but acidity and pH is negatively correlated. Same results were found

[192] Chunsa pH 5.47, Sindhri pH 4.02

Table 4-29 showing the pH of the mango varieties

S.No Chunsa Sindhri Beganpali Sonaro

1 5.5 4.4 3.7 2.02

2 5.3 4.3 3.7 2.03

3 5.8 4.8 3.8 2.35

4 5.6 4.6 3.4 2.5

5 5.3 4.7 3.5 2.7

6 5.6 4.5 3.6 2.6

7 5.5 4.4 3.7 2.3

8 5.5 4.4 3.8 2.8

9 5.2 4.8 3.6 2.9

10 5.5 4.7 3.8 2.8

Mean±Sd 5.48±0.17 4.56 ±0.18 3.66 ±0.13 2.5 ± 0.31

p<0.05 F=384.88 CV =5.07

102

ASH

The development of larvae depends on the various nutrients which are helpful for

the development and growth. The development and growth depend upon

nutrients. The Rich nutritional mangoes are very helpful for the development and

growth of egg and larval phases. Present work indicates by Ash analysis,

Chunsa variety is most nutritive as compare to other varieties for larval phases.

Data regarding ash content (Table 4-30) shows significant variation (F=185.3 p<0.05) of

the varieties. The maximum level of Ash is found in Chunsa variety Chunsa 0.47% and

sindhri 0.46%, while the minimum ash content were found in Beganpali 0.36%

and Sonara 0.31%. According to [192]. The maximum level of ash in the Sindhri

variety is 0.78%, which is controversial with our results because of regional soil

and climatic conditions.

Table 4-30 showing the Ash content (%) of the mango varieties

S.No Chunsa (%) Sindhri (%) Beganpali

(%) Sonaro (%)

1 0.48 0.41 0.39 0.32

2 0.46 0.42 0.38 0.31

3 0.47 0.41 0.35 0.3

4 0.48 0.42 0.32 0.31

5 0.48 0.43 0.35 0.31

6 0.48 0.44 0.34 0.32

7 0.45 0.41 0.39 0.31

8 0.45 0.41 0.38 0.31

9 0.48 0.42 0.38 0.3

10 0.48 0.42 0.35 0.32

Mean ±Sd 0.471 ± 0.01 0.46± 0.00 0.36± 0.02 0.31±0.00

p<0.05 F=185.3 CV =4.11

103

MOISTURE

Moisture has not important role in development and larval phases of mango. The

data of Table 4-31 illustrates significant difference of moisture among mango the

varieties. Sindhri 78.56% maximum level of moisture as compare to others. Secondly

the Sonaro 74.66% contains the maximum level as compared Chunsa (67.3%) and

Beganpali 64.41.According to [192] Chunsa variety contains moisture level 81.40% -

84.23 % moisture, while in sindhri 83.70 % moisture .

Table 4-31 showing the Moisture content (%) of the mango varieties

S.No Chunsa

(%)

Sindhri

(%)

Beganpali

(%)

Sonaro

(%)

1 82.35 79.23 72.62 70.25

2 83.25 78.18 71.23 79.12

3 81.34 77.66 70.25 70.18

4 82.39 79.8 72.24 70.11

5 81.38 79.11 72.26 70.15

6 81.38 78.26 71.25 79.11

7 81.25 78.29 71.62 79.13

8 82.37 79.23 70.31 70.18

9 83.36 77.62 70.32 79.23

10 83.36 78.23 72.32 79.22

Mean±Sd 67.34 ±0.87 78.56± 0.73 644.11± 0.91 746.68± 4.73

p<0.05 F=34.84 CV= 4.11

104

Figure 4-73 Shows the Bio-ingredients of mango fruit in four varieties of Mango [T.S=

Total Sugar, N.R.S= none reducing sugar, R.S= Reducing Sugar,

M= Moisture, pH. =Power of Hydrogen

4.3.3. CONSUMPTION OF MANGO PULP BY LARVAE

The susceptibility depends upon consumption of pulp by larvae (Performance of

progeny). The development and growth of larvae depends upon pulp of fruit. The

present study reveals that the maximum consumption by larvae of Bactrocera

dorsalis on Chunsa variety 33.58±8.69gms during 2016 and minimum

consumption was recorded 31.22±8.4gms during 2014, consumption was

significantly different (p<0.05) in three years (Table 4-32).

105

Table 4-32 showing the consumption of mango pulp of Chunsa variety by Bactrocera

dorsalis (2014 to 2016).

p<0.05 F=228.54 CV =4.54

The maximum consumption of pulp by larvae of Bactrocera dorsalis was observed

in Sindhri variety 293.63±4.4gms during 2016 and minimum consumption was

carried out during 2014(25.146±4.96gms).The consumption was significantly

different (p<0.05)in sindhri variety during 2014-2016 (Table 4-33).

Name of

variety

Consumption of mango pulp of Chunsa variety by Bactrocera

dorsalis larvae, yearly 500 (gms) mango pulp and 500 larvae were

provided

2014 2015 2016

Chunsa

variety

Period Consumption

weight

(gms)

Consumption

weight

(gms)

Consumption

weight

(gms)

1st-15 June 43.89 44.89 46.85

16-30 June 40.85 42.85 42.89

1st -15 July 38.9 39.95 40.64

16-30 July 35.66 38.66 38.55

1st -15 August 31.98 31.98 35.75

16-30 August 29.66 30.66 31.72

1st -15 September 25.85 26.85 28.81

16-30 September 24.05 24.55 25.86

1st -15 October 21.05 21.85 23.45

16-30 October 20.36 20.67 21.34

Total ---------------------- 312.25 322.91 335.86

Mean±Sd 31.22±8.41 32.29 ± 8.85 33.58±8.69

106

Table 4-33 showing the consumption of mango pulp of Sindhri variety by

Bactrocera dorsalis larvae from 2014 to 2016.

Name of

variety

Consumption of mango pulp of Sindhri variety by Bactrocera

dorsalis larvae Yearly 500 (gms) mango pulp and 500 larvae were

provided

Period

2014 2015 2016

Consumption

weight (gms)

Consumption

weight (gms)

Consumption

weight (gms)

Sindhri

variety

1st-15 June 33.55 40.84 35.12

16-30 June 31.55 38.95 35.1

1st -15 July 30.83 32.66 32.51

16-30 July 24.6 30.98 30.53

1st -15 August 22.15 28.05 31.07

16-30 August 24.15 25.28 30.98

1st -15 September 22.43 20.75 24.47

16-30 September 21.75 20.72 26.42

1st -15 October 20.27 18.55 24.08

16-30 October 20.18 18.4 23.35

Total ---------------------- 251.46 275.18 293.63

Mean±Sd 25.14 ±4.96 27.51±8.21 29.36±4.46

p<0.05 F= 36.82 CV=8.90

The maximum consumption of pulp by larvae of Bactrocera dorsalis was

observed in Beganpali variety during 2016 (23.90gms) and minimum

consumption was 20.22±5.7gm. During 2014. The consumption was significantly

different (p<0.05)-2016(Table 4-34). In 2014-2016.

107

Table 4-34 showing the consumption of mango of pulp Beganpali variety by Bactrocera

dorsalis larvae (2014 to 2016).

Name of

variety

Consumption of mango pulp of Beganpali variety by Bactrocera

dorsalis larvae, Yearly 500 (gms) mango pulp and 500 larvae

were provided

2014 2015 2016

Beganpali

variety

Period Consumption

weight (gms)

Consumption

weight (gms)

Consumption

weight (gms)

1st-15 June 29.61 30.85 32.65

16-30 June 26.43 28.57 29.47

1st -15 July 25.53 26.5 28.71

16-30 July 24.2 24.52 25.85

1st -15 August 19.21 21.25 23.17

16-30 August 17.07 20.62 22.47

1st -15 September 17.2 19.87 20.58

16-30 September 15.52 17.45 19.63

1st -15 October 14.07 16.23 18.44

16-30 October 13.18 15.65 18.09

Total ---------------------- 202.2 221.51 239.06

Mean

±SD

20.22±5.77 22.15±5.26 23.90±5.05

p<0.05 F131.53 CV=5.39

Table 4-35 the maximum consumption of pulp by larvae of Bactrocera dorsalis

was observed in Sonaro variety during 2016 (16.52±5.09gms) and minimum

consumption was (15.29±6.49gms) during 2014. The consumption was

significantly different (p<0.05) 2014 -2016 (Table.4-40).

108

Table 4-35 showing the consumption of mango of pulp Sonaro variety by Bactrocera

dorsalis larvae (2014 to 2016).

Name of

variety

Consumption of mango pulp of Sonaro variety by Bactrocera

dorsalis larvae, Yearly 500 (gms) mango pulp and 500 larvae

were provided

2014 2015 2016

Period Consumption

weight

(gms)

Consumption

weight

(gms)

Consumption

weight

(gms)

Sonaro

variety

1st-15 June 25.55 24.6 23.85

16-30 June 22.80 21.38 21.65

1st -15 July 18.75 20.71 20.49

16-30 July 18.65 18.38 19.69

1st -15 August 16.95 16.45 16.85

16-30 August 13.65 14.35 16.44

1st -15 September 11.25 12.83 15.54

16-30 September 10.23 11.55 12.56

1st -15 October 7.23 9.6 9.45

16-30 October 6.21 5.22 8.72

Total ---------------------- 151.29 155.07 165.24

Mean±Sd 15.29±6.49 15.50±5.94 16.52±5.09

P<0.05 F=83.20 CV=10.68

The maximum consumption of mango pulp (323.67±11.82gms) by the

Bactrocera dorsalis larvae was observed on Chunsa variety during (2014-2016)

and minimum consumption was observed in Sonara variety (155.78±11.12gms)

during (2014-2016) (Table-32 and Table.35) but during (2014-2016) the

moderate consumption observed on Sindhri 273.42±21.13gms followed by

Beganpali 220.92±18.74 (Table-33 and Table 34). Data reveals that during the

months of June-July and August the consumption was increased but during

September - October the consumption rate was decreased. The fruit varieties was

109

highly consumed by fruit flies during months of June – August, due to richness

of host in its peak and climatic conditions also support the pest for development.

During these months the favorable temperature frequently rise above

46 °C (115 °F), humidity 55% to 65% , rainy season 6–7 in (15–18 cm) per year,

which required for growth of fruit fly . All these controlled conditions were

maintained during laboratory. Another reason is that during these months it was

observed more consumed varieties Chunsa-sindhri-Beganpali, while Sonaro

varieties are less consumed. The mango varieties are changed according to their

nutritional characteristics. According to research findings Chunsa variety is

highly consumed by Bactrocera dorsalis larvae because having the maximum

amount of sugar less acidic as compared to other given varieties; and Sonara

variety is less consumed by larvae because having minimum amount of sugar and

less ingredients, high moisture but this variety having big diameter and most

fibrous.

Table 4-36 showing the yearly consumption of mango pulp on four varieties of mango,

by Bactrocera dorsalis.

Variety

Name

Yearly consumption of mango

pulp of four varieties (gms)

Total

consumption

weight on

each

variety(gms)

Total

Mean±Sd

2014 2015 2016

Chunsa 312.25 322.91 335.86 971.02 323.67±11.82

Sindhri 251.46 275.18 293.63 820.27 273.42±21.13

Beganpali 202.2 221.51 239.06 662.77 220.92±18.74

Sonaro 145.03 155.07 167.24 467.34 155.78±11.12

*Yearly consumption (Mean±Sd) significantly different p<0.05) in different varieties

It was observed the highest consumption was recorded during 2016 on all

varieties and less consumption was recorded during the 2014, each year the

number of larvae introduced same and quantity of mango was same and the

controlled conditions was provided also same. The consumption and survival

rate was increased because of the quality of fruit (Table 4-36)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit

110

Table 4-37 showing the consumption of pulp by each larval instar on four varieties

(each instar level provide 500gms mango weight and 500 larval instars on each variety)

(2014-2016)

Variety

Name

Consumption of pulp by each larval stage on each

variety during 2014-20016

1st instar 2nd instar 3rd instar

Chunsa 319.66±21.77 362.19±14.68 399.66±28.09

Sindhri 270.95±18.69 294.59 ±13.47 367.35 ± 38.01

Beganpali 244.52 ±17.69 262.38±17.78 305.94±14.33

Sonaro 189.99±12.06 220.75±12.81 225.47±54.23

*Larval instar consumption (Mean±Sd) significantly different p<0.05) in

different varieties

The consumption of mango pulp was calculated on the each larval instar. The 1 st

instar was mostly in resting condition but metabolically active; for development

it have need for food. It was consumed very little amount of pulp as compared to

2nd and third instar larvae. 2nd instar was actively moved and consumed the

pulp.3rd instar was most injurious, it feed rapidly and make the fruit pulpy within

a seconds and consumed the huge amount of fruit. Table.4-37 and Fig.4-79

shows that highest amount was consumed by the third larval instar in all

varieties. For the Accuracy of result we have calculated the number of survived

larvae on the basis of collection of pupae in laboratory on different varieties

*(during three years)

111

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Sonaro Beganpali Sindhri Chunsa

1st instar

2ndinstar

3rd instar

Mango varieties

Figure 4-74 showing the larval instars consumption on four varieties

The larvae were the most injurious for the pulp of mango. According to results

the Chunsa verity is best survival medium for the of fruit fly; because maximum

consumption of pulp was consumed by larvae due to maxim quantity of sugar

16.189±0.26 %, Ash 0.471±0.01%, pH 5.48±0.17 and lowest acidity

0.289±0.02%. The Beganpali and Sindhri was best for survival medium for the

fruit fly due to quality of fruit. The Sonaro variety is not a good survival medium

for pest due to high acidity 0.505±0.01% and less quantity of sugar. It is found

that Chunsa variety is highly consumed by larvae, as compared to Sonaro

variety. It is observed through biochemical analysis that the Sugar, pH and Ash

are important components for the faster development of larvae of pest. (Table 4-

43). The correlation between the consumption and bio -ingredients, the sugar and

pH. Positive correlation with consumption but acidity, ash and moisture

negatively correlated. (Table 4-38) and (Fig. 4.75, 4.76, 4.77and 4.78).

112

Table 4- 38. Showing the comparative of consumption and bio-ingredients of the varieties

Varieties

Name

Total

Consumption Total Sugar

Reducing

sugar

Non-

Reducing

Sugar

pH Moisture Ash Acidity

Chuna 323.67±11.82 16.189±0.26 5.143±0.25 10.887±0.48 5.48±0.17 67.346±0.87 0.471±0.01 0.289±0.02

Sindhri 273.42±21.13 14.947±0.28 4.576±0.03 9.717±± 0.47 4.56±0.18 78.561±0.73 0.462±0.00 0.369±0.01

Beganpali 220.92±18.74 13.976±0.61 4.292±0.25 92.95±0.40 3.66±0.13 644.11±0.91 0.363±0.02 0.483±0.01

Sonaro 155.78±11.12 11.485±0.76 3.957±0.27 8.341±0.50 2.5±0.31 746.68±4.73 1.169±0.00 0.505±0.01

113

Table 4-39 Pearson co-relation of consumption of Bactrocera dorsalis mango varieties

with the chemical characteristics of from June–October 2014-2016.

Parameter Pearson Correlation “r” ( p =value)

Acidity -.951 .201

moisture -.925 0.75

Ash - 806 .194

pH .999 0.01

Sugar 0.12 0.01

*correlation in significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

**Correlation in significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Figure 4-75 showing the strong positive co-relation between Sugar and consumption by

Bactrocera dorsalis larvae during Jun-Sept 2014-2016

114

Figure 4-76showing the strong negative co-relation between Acidity and consumption

by Bactrocera dorsalis larvae during Jun-Sept (2014-2016)

Figure 4-77 showing the strong negative co-relation between Moisture and consumption

by Bactrocera dorsalis larvae during Jun-Sept (2014-2016)

115

Figure 4-78 showing the strong negative co-relation between Ash and consumption by

Bactrocera dorsalis larvae during Jun-Sept (2014-2016)

Figure 4- 79 showing the strong positive co-relation between pH and consumption by

Bactrocera dorsalis larvae during Jun-Sept (2014-2016)

116

PUPAL RECOVERY

The pupal recovery was observed month vise from (June to October) during

2014-2016.The puparia recovery was significantly different (p< 0.05) among the

four varieties during repeated experiment. The highest number of puparia was

recovered from Chunsa 1246.33±141.98, followed by Beganpali and Sindhri

variety (1160.33±133.76 and 1058.67 ±64.82, respectively) during 2014-2016.

(fig.4-80).The least number of pupae was recovered from Sonaro variety was

933.33±84.3. The mostly pupal have seen in Chunsa, Sindhri and Beganpali but

the least found in Sonaro variety (Table.4-40).

Figure 4-80 Pupal recovery from four varieties of mango

117

Table 4-40 shows the survival of pupal recovery in all varieties during 2013-2015

Name of

Variety

No.of larvae

(*three years)

Survival

%

Mortality

%

Yearly recovery of pupae

on four variety of mango Mean±Sd

Total

Consumption of

mango pulp

Total

Pupae

recover 2014 2015 2016

Chunsa 4500 83.09% 16.91% 1120 1219 1400 1246.33±141.98 323.67±11.82 3739

Sindhri 4500 77.35% 22.64% 1022 1170 1289 1160.33±133.76 273.42±21.13 3482

Beganpali 4500 70.57% 29.43% 985 1084 1107 1058.67±64.82 220.92±18.74 3176

Sonaro 4500 62.22% 58.44% 825 955 1020 933.33±99.28 155.78±11.12 2800

*Mean±Sd of pupal recovery was significantly (p<0.05) among all mango varieties

118

The emergence of flies are not significantly varied (p< 0.05) in varieties (Fig.4-

81) because pupae have fined from all varieties almost 95% survived. The

survival rate of flies in four varieties are significantly different (p< 0.05), during

two months the highest survival % occurred in Beganpali Chunsa and Sindhri,

variety as compare to Sonaro (Fig.4-82).

Figure 4-81 the emergence curve data on four varieties of mango

Figure 4-82 the survival % of Bactrocera dorsalis on different varieties within 2 months

(July-August)

119

4.4 SUMMARY

The Present Study reveals the significance of mango fruit and infestation of

important mango varieties, which are undermined by fruit flies pest in present

time. The Bactrocera species are major pest of our Sindh, which is not only

destroy the fruits but also destructive for vegetables. We have work done on

biology of Fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Pest) which is major pest of mango.

The Study of biology explains the different life stages, insect density, body size,

survival, Pupae weight, adult emergence, longevity, flight ability, fecundity,

fertility and mating ability of the insect and feeding behavior. Study of biology is

positive step for the recognition of any pest and will be helpful for the strategies

of integrate Pest Management (IPM), that in which developmental fruit fly easily

control. Through biology, get the answers of following questions easily. Which

developmental stage of pest is more vulnerable? Which developmental stage of

pest highly survival? Where strategies of management should have applied for

control of the Pest?

Second parameter of this study is ecology. Ecology and biology are very much

relevant; because development and growth of host and pest are dependent on

ecological factors like biotic and a biotic factor. This environmental study help

for the betterment of fruits growing and harvesting, fruit maturity and

advantageous for the observation of pest (fruit fly), hatching period, emergence,

longevity and increasing and decreasing of population during seasonal crops.

Another most important benefit for this parameter is provide the relation of host

and pest by climatic factors, such as rainfall, humidity, temperature and intensity

of light, which are directly and indirectly affects the life of pest and availability

of host. This step will be supportive for the betterment of IPM strategies to

control the pest population and increasing the production of crop.

Third parameter of this study is susceptibility of mango varieties against Bactrocera

species. Susceptibility of four mango varieties was observed, these varieties Chunsa,

Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro. This study is positive implement for the detection of

sensitivity of mango varieties and crops in Pest management, through this we

analysis’s the sources of attractants, which attract attracters (Pest). During present

research work observe the bio-Physical and bio-chemical parameters of above mango

120

varieties, which attract the fruit fly towards mango. This research of attractance of

pest, much informative for the growers and agricultural departments for the control of

pest. The awareness about the susceptible varieties is valuable for betterment of

producing and trading in country. In advance countries the growers grow those

varieties of mango which are more resist against fruit fly species but here in Pakistan,

still we could not make it possible. Study of varietal susceptibility will help us to

identify, which variety of mango will be more resist against fruit fly. Currently, this

whole research will be beneficial for mango growers and provides better tools and

techniques for the betterment of control strategies in IPM.

4.5 DISCUSSION

Fruit flies are the most horrible pest. They survive on fruits and vegetables. The

Fruit flies Bactrocera species affects the economic values of mango fruit due to

severe infestation in Sindh Pakistan. In present study we have tried to do some

work on some important varieties of mango and occurrence of Bactrocera

species. The present study was based on the three major parameters.

(1)Observe the climatic conditions, field survey of mango fields in different

areas of Sindh and monitoring the population of fruit fly Bactrocera species in

(Mirpur khas and Naushahro feroze district). (2) Observed biology of Bactrocera

dorsalis under controlled conditions at laboratory. (3) Observe the susceptibility

of four mango varieties Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro against

Bactrocera species.

During 2013-2014 observed the biology of fruit flies under laboratory

conditions, and field observation. For the conformation of Bactrocera dorsalis

as major pest of mango fruit; study was carried out in field by pheromones traps

(Methyl Eugenole) during 2014-2015.Succeptibility was observed during 2014-

2016

Results shows that ecological/ environmental factors (humidity, rainfall wind

velocity and temperature), availability of food, vegetation and alternative host

plants played vital role in the occurrence of all Bactrocera species during mango

fruity season. We monitored the population of Bactrocera species in two

121

localities of Sindh, Mirpur khas and Naushahro feroze during (June-September,

2014 and 2015. We have selected both localities because of different

environmental conditions; the environmental conditions in both localities were

noticeably different. In Mirpur khas the temperature was low and humid during

mango season, in comparison of Mirpur khas, Naushahro feroze was dry and hot

weather in same period. Mirpur khas is known as “Mango fruit land” and

Naushahro feroze famous due to all citreous fruits in overall Pakistan.

Bactrocera dorsalis H. was recorded in both localities in the month of Jun-

September (2014 and 2015); According to [38] and [35] Bactrocera dorsalis is

the major pest of mango fruit. Maximum population of male flies caches 30483

in Mirpukhas during two years. The thousands hectors and huge number of

mango varieties cultivated in Mirpur khas. It is vegetative area; fruity land,

alternate host plant were richly present and favorable climate conditions

(temperature, humidity, rainfall) for fruit flies throughout the year, that it could

be the causes of richness and outbreak of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas. The

Naushahro feroze is main land of citreous fruits. Lemon, Berries, Guava,

Bannana and Mango orchards are available in this district of Sindh. The

maximum Population of adult male flies was recorded 21970 from Naushahro

feroze during the two years of study. The maximum populations of Bactrocera

dorsalis was recorded high in month of June and July, its population started in

last week of May as the mangoes starts harvesting, slowly and gradually declined

from the mid of August; as the mango season comes to its end. Main reason of

population increasing and declines that it directly co-related with host

availability. Climatic conditions were also major factor for the supporting to

emergence of population of Bactrocera dorsalis. Results of present study showed

the strong affinity of fruit fly with mango fruit. The Bactrocera dorsalis starts

emerged from end of May to availability of fruit; because the mango fruit

started ripened from mid of May in central Sindh, one month earlier ripened

than Upper Sindh and Punjab province, as slowly gradually temperature were

raised from May-June 46 °C (115 °F). The peak of mango fruit in the June and

July in overall Sindh; this is another reason for outbreak of the Bactrocera

dorsalis. Population was gradually increase in July (upper and lower) Sindh,

because during this month peak of fruit availability, favorable climatic

conditions such as highest wind velocity, showers and low rain, cloudy season

122

(monsoon season) and humid, it’s favorable for emergence and oviposition of

Bactrocera dorsalis. Bactrocera dorsalis population was started gradually

declined from the mid of August as the season of host comes to its end. These

results agreed with other researchers like [58] worked on population dynamics of

Bactrocera species, such as B.correcta, B.zonata and B.dorsalis in Bari Chakwal

in Punjab. According to him the population of Bactrocera dorsalis was increase

with host availability, like mango and guava fruit ripened during the July and

August in Punjab. There was gradually increase in population of fruit flies in the

month of August because climatic conditions such as temperature decreased and

humidity was high. After August the number of flies gradually decreased and no

specimen was recorded in December due to unavailability of host and low

temperature (12.3ºc), there was no positive co-relation between the temperature

and population of B.dorsalis. Bactrocera dorsalis strongly co-related with the

host availability. It was observed that mango fruit of Sindh ripened one month

earlier than Punjab. The population of Bactrocera dorsalis peak in June -July,

because during these months mango hit the highest point in sindh, same results

as the mango and guava season is late started July and August in Punjab and pest

population was recorded peak in July- August in Punjab.

[161]worked on the population dynamics of B.invadence and C.cosyra trapping

method males by methyl Eugenole (ME) in two local areas (Niayes and Noto

village) of Senegal. According to him the rainfall have an influence on the

population dynamics of B.invadens. It shows the variation in outbreak of

B.invadens population by following trend of the rains. C.cosyra was a slight peak

of the curve during the mid of July due to perceptible rain, followed by a

decreasing trend in the beginning of August despite the intensity of the rain, the

development of populations has been related to rain fall at the beginning of rainy

season, it was noted that the population of the fruit flies have increased by the

first rain (20mm), due to heavy rain during the last fortnight of July the

population was suddenly decreased. Therefore, the number of fruit flies has been

co-related to rain fall. Therefore, the number of individuals captured was higher

from beginning July -mid August, the rainiest period, especially for B. invadens.

These results also related with our study as the heaviest rainfall there were

decrease in the population of the flies. The B.invadens is dominant according to

123

population during starting of July-to mid of August same results of Bactrocera

dorsalis was observed that population are maximum recorded in July and slowly

gradually decreased in August. According to [57] the temperature and moist have

a direct effect on demography of the species but also an indirect effect by their

incidence on the availability of plants hosts and the presence of natural enemies.

[160] worked on the population of the fruit fly, caches by different chemical

traps in mango orchards at Korhogo (Africa), fruit flies were caught using

Terpinyl acetate (99.18 % C.cosyra) and Methyl Eugenol (70.74% of C.Bermii)

Ceratitise cosyra (major pest in the mangoes) was present all year long in the

mango orchards in the north Africa, with peeks from April to June in the peek

mango season, same results we have observed by methyl eugenole on Bactrocera

dorsalis during mango season. Outbreak of Bactrocera species has strongly

threatened the mango cash verities. The Bactrocera dorsalis is the major mango

pest as compare to other species. The Bactrocera dorsalis 85% attack on mango

other species scarcely such as B. Zonata and B. correcta attacked on mango

because during mango season guava, Jujube and banana also available from May

to August may be influence of these fruit other fruit flies infest mango varieties ,

same results stated by [38] that the oriental fruit fly losses the fruits from 5-

100% and 80% in guava fruit which is the secondary host after the mango of

oriental fruit fly. [60].described that 80% Beganpali variety was infested by fruit

flies. According [26] during 2013 mango fruit fly is highly hostile in major

mango varieties of Sindh such as Chunsa, sindhri and Sonara variety. [32] states

that in India 1-31% of mango are infested by Bactrocera dorsalis. According to

[174] and [32] 5% -80% loss of mango due to oriental fruit fly, 50% loss by

Bactrocera fruit flies in guava [38]. Similar results were reported by [58]who

found the highest percentage (80%) fruit fly infestation in guava orchards in

ripening stage.

The present study shows the biology (Morphometric characteristics and

developmental rate) on different varieties. The present results shows the

morphometric study such as that the size of egg 0.5mm-0.6mm laying and

hatching period, similar result was reported by [200] for B.cucurbitae and [182]

on B.dorsalis. They observed that the eggs hatched within 12 to 24 hrs.

124

[34]reported similar results on B.dorsalis and B.zonata. This shows that in

general hatching period of Bactrocera species is 1-2 days on different fruits.

Observed same results on Sonaro and other varieties 2-3 days incubation period.

Bactrocera dorsalis H. punctured the mangoes skin by ovipositor and shed their eggs

under the skin, after 1 or 2 days eggs hatch in the pulp of mangoes, this procedure of egg

lying described in the same species by [60] The larvae of B.dorsalis pass three

instars with different size and morphology. The 1 st instar was inactive and small

in size as compare to two other instars. It was observed that 1st instar of larvae was

not injurious to the mango fruits because at this stage the larvae was inactive, 2nd and

3rd instars was very injurious because at this stage they were very actively feed on the

fruits. [34] also observed this behavior of the larvae; and same behavior of larvae in were

observed in given varieties. The 2nd instar had a distinguishing characteristic i.e.

presence of externally visible alimentary canal, which was not described by [34];

[162]. The fully grown 3rd instar larvae had visible characters. Third instar feed

rapidly in the pulp of mango, formed the tunnels and holes in the fruit pulp and

peel, come outside the fruit by holes of peel, fast move and Jump. Black mole on

anterior and caudal side, this distinguishing character was not noted by [34]

[162]. According to my findings the development period was 8-10 days, but

different workers [201] recorded 5 to 22 days, [202] to 11day, [203]. 3 to 8 days

and [204] 15days. This variation in larval developmental time may be because

nature of variety of mango. The Morphometric characters like color, length and

width of all developmental stages of Bactrocera dorsalis were observed on these

four varieties, Chunsa, Sindhri and Beganpali, as we have observed in 10

specimens of each developmental stage randomly, small variation may be

occurred but no significant changes were found in measurement and physical

appearance in each developmental stage. Present study were very agreed to

earlier study work of [34] on Bactrocera dorsalis. Pupal period recorded on

melon fruit fly by [205], [206], [207]. [200] worked on pupae of the

B.cucurbitae, he mentioned that the black dot on the posterior portion was the

distinguishing characteristic of B.cucurbitae, However according to my findings,

that same black dot was on the posterior side of pupae of Bactrocera dorsalis,

also present, there is not a distinguishing characteristic which shows cucurbit but

in fact a generic characteristic. Results were found by [182] on different varieties

of mango and also work generally on mango as compared to other fruits, noted

125

that adult size (8.1mm) was maximum length of adults. Same observation way

made under laboratory conditions, and similar findings were observed by

[208].According to [209]; [210]copulation period was prolonged. Very close

results were found by [182]rearing the pre-oviposition period of Bactrocera

dorsalis 18-22 days and same findings were also recorded on fruit flies by

[211]; [212]; [213]. The variations in oviposition rate may be affected due to

different cultivars of mango, or due to some physical parameters such as ripened

and ripened fruits as well as the size of peel thickness and color. Related results

were also found by [182] fecundity rate of Bactrocera dorsalis per day, per

female were 15.0-16.0 eggs. Sex ratio may be affected by environmental

fluctuations or food availability, and may be its natural phenomena. Sex ratio

(♂: ♀) of Bactrocera dorsalis on different host such as Bannana, guava, papaya

and sapota and mango 1:1.22, 1:1.1 and 1:1.06 and 1:1 respectively was reported

by [182]. These results related with the [200] and also close to [210]; [214] who

reported that sugar (carbohydrates) nutrient extended the longevity of melon fruit

fly. The longevity of Bactrocera dorsalis on mango varieties were almost same

there is no variation occurred. The time between eggs laying and hatching

(incubation period) varied from variety to variety. On Chunsa variety 1.5±0.02

day; this is minimum as compared to other two varieties like sindhri 2.32±0.16

and Beganpali 2.39±0.01.The [182] observed average incubation duration of B.

dorsalis was 2.0 to 3.25 days on different varieties of mango. Similarly found

that the incubation period of Bactrocera dorsalis on mango was 1.5 days as

compare to other fruits such as (Sapeto, Bannana, and Papaya). The larval

development duration on Chunsa variety was 6.51±0.2 days, as Beganpali and

Sindhri variety developmental time was almost same (7.5±1.6days) with little

variation. This variation in development of larvae on Chunsa variety was due to

rich nutrients. Moreover, it was the most sugary in all varieties, which provided

the favorable medium of development to the larvae. Similarly [182] defined the

maximum time 7.75 days on different varieties of mango, and [182]reported 6.0

days larval minimum time on mango as compared to with other fruits like

papaya, Banana and Sapeto. Other workers also observed 3 to 21 days larval

development duration on different fruits and vegetables because every fruit has

different medium for the larval development like high fiber content, sweetness

and nutrient and at the same time environmental conditions like temperature and

126

humidity play a major role in larval development time. [201]; [205]; [215].

During the present study, pupae period ranged from 8-9 days on four varieties of

mango. [182]reported pupae period 8-11 days and also longest pupae period are

12 days on mango as compared to other fruits. [216] reported same pupae period

on Bannana, [182]reported that size of pupae varied not only between different

fruits like guava and mango but also among cultivars of mango. [34] also said that

adult emerged from the pupa within 1-2 weeks but took more time in cool conditions.

Same results were observed in Chunsa, Sindhri, and Beganpali that pauperization in the

soil, adults emerge within 1-2 weeks. The life span of Bactrocera dorsalis 35-45 days

was perceived during complete life span male is shortest life span then female and short

population then female. Length of life cycle and emergence of flies depend upon

temperature & humidity, minimum period recorded on Chunsa variety 16 days and

maximum period on Sonora variety 21-28 days. Results indicate that the life cycle

on three varieties from 16-18 days of mango; but on Sonaro variety 21- 28 days

life cycle recorded. similar findings were observed by [182], as the minimum

time duration of life cycle of Bactrocera dorsalis are 18 days on mango. [203]

reported shorter life cycle on mango 19.8 days and [216]reported longest life

cycle on mango 25.0 day. It may depend on varietal contents because some

varieties of mango are very juicy and more sugary, therefore, life cycle rapidly

developed, but some were fibrous and less sweet in test, the life cycle . of

B.dorsalis took some time for development in such cases. But there is no any

significant difference (P>0.005) in all developmental stages of Bactrocera

dorsalis in these varieties of mango. Sex ratio (♂: ♀) among all the cultivars of

mango was almost same, as in mango, sex ratio was 1:3. Similar findings were

also reported by [217]; [40]; [203]; [182]; [216]. During present study the

maximum survival 98.32of pupae and third instar larvae 97.27% of Bactrocera dorsalis

in Chunsa variety, followed by Beganpali and Sindhri (95.28%,92.71% and 87.09%

86.12%, respectively but the minimum survival 84%of pupae and 71.25 third instar

82.85% in Sonaro variety. Results of present study show that the least survival or

vulnerable stages are egg and 1st instar of fruit flies. Maximum and minimum

survival rate in varieties may be due to sugar ingridance, climatic factors or any physical

characteristic of fruit. Present study was based on susceptible varieties, to determine the

sensitivity of different cash varieties of Sindh Pakistan against Bactrocera dorsalis, we

have observed the susceptibility of four varieties on the basses of attractant

127

characteristics of fruit by fruit fly, which help for the oviposition and growth rate

(development) of Bactrocera dorsalis on various varieties of mango. In this study we

have observed the physical and chemical characteristics of mango fruit. Physical

characteristics peel thickness, size of fruit (length of fruit), color, surface texture, ripe

and unripe fruits and chemical characteristics measure the different nutrients, such as

acidity, pH, moisture, ash and total sugar, reducing and non-reducing sugar in (grams

%) of these four varieties Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali, Sonaro varieties. Chunsa is one

of the main varieties, which are cultivated all over Sindh, Pakistan. It is being a good

qualities, it has been exported to all over world. This variety is sweetest and most

favorable aroma and recognized internationally top ten varieties of the world. Sindhri is

one of the other exclusive delicious king variety of mango fruit in Sindh Pakistan, it

grows over all Sindh. it also included in top ten varieties of world. Beganpali sourer

sweet in taste grows only in central Sindh (Hyderabad, Tando Muhammad Khan,

Tando Allahayar, Tando Jam, Sanghar districts and Mirpur khas), and Sonaro

variety is also an important variety according to weight mass in Pakistan. It grows

commonly in upper Sindh (Naushahro feroze, Khairpur Mir’s and Sukkur districts).

These four varieties are highly liked by their aroma, Flavor and taste in

International market (Dawn newspaper 2013, Main page). Physical parameters of

mango fruit we have examined the peel thickness of each variety the least peel thickness

is Chunsa variety 0.325 ±0.00mm, followed by the Sindhri and Beganpali (0.377±

0.01mm, 0.62 ± 0.00mm, respectively) and Sonara had the highest peel thickness

(1.169± 0.01mm). The peel thickness in four varieties significantly different

(ANOVA: F=, P<0.05) it plays major role in the oviposition of fruit fly. [170];

[106] reported that peel thickness is major characteristic of citreous fruits which

prevent the females from egg laying directly into pulp of fruits. Same result was

reported by [189] on local mango varieties of Africa, such as Keith, (0.17cm)

had highest peel thickness and Kent was the highest thinnest peel (0.13cm), Kent

was the most susceptible variety of mango in Africa. Size of fruit one of the

attractive parameter for the oviposition of fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis, the relationship

of oviposition and development of larvae has been depends on size of fruit of host. The

Fruit fly not only perceives the place where it easily punctures, but it also prefers the size

of the fruit as their offspring survive and feed easily. The sindhri was highest in length

with (135.93±7.7mm) followed by the Beganpali (69.099±1.04mm), Chunsa

(105.38±2.5mm) and Sonaro variety (94.238 ±1.4mm) in length. The mango varieties

128

Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonara significantly different (ANOVA: F=262.54,

P<0.05) in length. Other researchers also agreed with these length of varieties such as

[192]) same findings were reported , Sindhri 13.47 cm length and Chunsa had

(10.27mm), [145] reported the length of Beganpali 10.5 mm, Chunsa 13.4mm

which is related to my findings. [14] reported the length of Sindhri variety

(12.80cm). The Physical characteristics ripe and unripe mangoes also play

important role in the infestation of fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis. Ripened mango

fruits are highly infested as compared to unripe fruits because ripe mango sweet

in taste, soft and attractive in color, but unripe mangoes highly acidic, sourer in

taste and having pulp is hard and green in colour. Ripe mangoes highly

influenced by oviposition. Other researchers also agreed [218],[165], [47] and

[111]showed that peel firmness and thickness greatly affected the oviposition

preference of fruit flies, with female tephritids having oviposition preference for

fruits with softer peri carp over those with hard peri carp [136]. [47]) also

showed that when eggs of Ceratitis capitata were artificially inserted directly

into fruit pulp of a resistant variety, the resistance broke down indicating that

one of the main factors of resistance/susceptibility of mango to fruit flies was in

the fruit peel. However, [34]had shown earlier that the thickness of fruit skin was

not a problem for the penetration of the ovipositor of fruit flies. Kent, Palmer

and Haden had the smallest peel thickness and firmness, and if peel thickness

and firmness were the only factors responsible for susceptibility of mango, the

three varieties (Kent, Palmer and Haden) would have recorded correspondingly

higher values of puparia recovered and infestation indices. [47] that peel

thickness is the main mechanism of resistance among mango varieties to fruit

flies. However, this was not the case indicating that there might be other factors

that contribute to host acceptability and susceptibility. The studies consist on the

Chemical characteristics of mango varieties at ripening stage. The maximum sugar

was observed in Chunsa variety is (16.189%) followed by sindhri 14.947% and

Beganpali 13.976 %, but least sugar was found in Sonaro 11.485%. The results

of total sugar in present study agreed with the previous findings of research

works [192];[39, 145] and [197]observed the related results about total sugar in

Chunsa variety (14.6%) and Sindhri (11.1%). [198] recorded the sugar % in

Chunsa (16.40%), Sindhri (15.30%) and Beganpali (14.50%).According to [198]

the Summer Bhisht Chunsa is best with maximum sugar and lower level of

129

acidity in fruit pulp as compared to other varieties of mango. [190] observed the

same results of total sugar in local varieties of Sudan. [219] reported that the

sugar and TSS increase in ripening mangoes, but the acidity generally decline on

ripening. Similarly in mango reducing and non-reducing sugar also present in

varying amount and significantly different in four varieties (p<0.05). The highest

reducing and non-reducing sugar in Chunsa variety (reducing 5.14 %, non-

reducing 10.8%) as compared to Sindhri (reducing 4.57%, non-reducing 9.7%)

Beganpali (reducing 4.29% and 9.29% non-reducing) and Sonaro variety

(reducing 3.95% and non-reducing 8.34%). Same findings were observed by

[220] in mango varieties in Bangladesh. [197] reported the reducing and non-

reducing sugar in Sindhri variety (reducing 4.9 % and non-reducing 6.2%) and

Chunsa variety (reducing 4.3% non-reducing 10.3%). [198]same results of

reducing and non-reducing sugar were found in the Beganpali, Bahisht Chunsa

and Sindhri varieties in Punjab. [190] observed the same results of reducing

sugar in local varieties of Sudan. Our results of reducing and non-reducing sugar

contradict with [39] because he had reported the reducing and non-reducing

sugar in immature mango varieties such as Chunsa(reducing 1.90% and non-

reducing 3.04%) and Sindhri (reducing 2.78 and non-reducing 4.24%). The

results of pH measurements and acidity values of the four mango varieties

indicate that the most acidic variety was Sonaro variety because with high

acidity and low pH (acidity 0.50±0.01% and pH 2.5 ± 0.31) as compare to other

three varieties Chunsa (acidity 0.28±0.02% and pH 5.48±0.175119), Sindhri

(acidity 0.369 ±0.01% and pH 4.56±0.18) and Beganpali (acidity

0.483± 0.011595% and pH. 3.66 ±0.13499). Related results were recorded by

[220] in different varieties of Bangladesh, recorded the acidity and pH of Chunsa

variety is (acidity 0.32±0.02% and pH 4.70±0.05). Our results also agreed with

other workers; who worked on different varieties of mango pH. such as

[197]recorded the pH (4.4) value and acidity (0.39%) of Sindhri variety and

Chunsa variety pH (5.8)value and acidity (0.26%) these results of acidity also

related of our studies . [159], [196] and [6]same results were recorded about pH

and acidity of mango varieties. The gradual decrease in acid content may be due

to change of acids into sugars by some physiological and bio-Chemical changes

in the fruits [6]. Our results also related with the study on mango chemical

characteristic of various mango varieties recorded the acidity and pH of mango.

130

[198] also contradict with our mango acidity results, they measure the over ripe

mango acidity, Beganpali (0.49%) Samar Bahisht Chunsa (24.90%) and Sindhri

(0.42%). [198] also worked on the acidity and pH of the mango varieties of

Spain. Moisture of mango play little bit role in development of pest because

larvae always likes firm fruits; after survival they make them to moist and juicy

pulpy after they consume pulp and holes in peel and jumping from out of the

fruit. Data illustrate and shows significant difference in moisture content in fruit

pulp among mango cultivars Sindhri 78.56% and Sonaro 74.66%, While in

Chunsa (67.3%) and Beganpali 64.41 were less moistures compared to above

varieties. According to [192] Chunsa 81.40% - 84.23 % moisture, while in

sindhri 83.70 % moisture. [190]worked on moisture of three varieties of Sudan,

which is almost related to my findings. [145] find the moisture in different

varieties of mango 73.0-86.7. [39]worked on the immature mangoes moisture

(Chunsa 85.72%) and sindhri (88.60%). The development of larvae depend on

the various nutrient which helpful for the development and growth. The

development of pest was occurred faster on most nutritive mango, present work

indicates by ash analysis, which variety was most nutritive as compare to other

variety. Data regarding maximum ash were noticed in mango Chunsa 0.47% and

sindhri 0.46%, while the minimum ash was found in Beganpali 0.36% and

Sonara 0.31%. According to [192] the maximum ash in the Sindhri variety

0.78% which is controversial to my results. [190] worked on the ash of mango

varieties of the Sudan Abusamaka variety ash (0.67%) and Gulbaltour (1.10%),

Magloba (0.90%), [39]worked on the Ash content of Sindhri variety (0.60%)

and Chunsa variety (0.45%) in immature varieties. [220]worked on the moisture

and ash of the mango varieties of Bangladesh, almost same results. Same results

of moisture and ash were observed in different squash samples by [194] Which

results contradict with our results may be soil and environmental influence or

physically (ripe or over ripe) fruit changed. This study reveals that the mango

fruit containing the above essential nutritional ingredients, which help full in the

development of pest progeny. During present study larvae introduced (per weak /

per variety/ per larval stage) in 25gms pulp (per weak / per variety/ per larval

stage) of given mango varieties. Present study shows the maximum averages

mean consumption of mango pulp by Bactrocera dorsalis larvae recorded with

three years data. The maximum consumption of mango pulp by Bactrocera

131

dorsalis in Chunsa variety (323.67±11.82gms) followed by Beganpali

(220.92±18.74gms) and Sindhri variety (273.42±21.13gms) were recorded due to

the maximum % of sugar and ash, on the basis of positive and negative relat ion

of sugar and acid, while the minimum consumption of mango pulp by Bactrocera

dorsalis larvae in the Sonaro variety (155.78±11.12gms) were recorded, due to

the presence of high acidity medium, minimum and less amount of sugar and

ash. The result shows significant (p<0.05) differences of development rate, and

mortality and survival % of Bactrocera dorsalis among the four mango varieties.

The results show the maximum pupal recovery was observed in Chunsa variety

as compared to other three varieties. Chunsa was the best variety for offspring

survival with higher % of survival to pupation, shorter development time and

highest consumption by introducing larvae during laboratory experiments. The

maximum Consumption of mango pulp by larvae of Bactrocera dorsalis were

recorded in 2015 compared with other two years (2013-2014).The result shows

significant differences in consumption of pulp, the development rate and survival

% of pest, among the given varieties. Result shows that maximum rate of

infected and damage mango observed during 2015 because the infestation of fruit

fly day by day increase, because still no any particular solution of this problem

will be found and there is other reason due to change in quality of fruit

ingredients each year, because during study period randomly collected mangoes

for chemical analysis to detect varietal more or less sugary or acidic, may be it

influenced by the climatic changes (rainy season start emergence) or occurs

difference of soil. These results agree with previous workers, [111], who

reported that Tephritidae flies complete their development faster suitable hosts

than in unsuitable hosts. The study shows that fruits differ in nutrients, they offer

immature stages of insects with respect to quality of available nutrients, which

particularly influence developmental time, adult eclosion rate and reproductive

maturation time of adult flies [116]. This implies that Kent may have the

requisite resources, for the faster development of the flies, this work published in

Ghana by [221]. Biology of B. dorsalis showed that egg to puparia duration

varied from 11 and 23 days, which consistent with the mean values obtained for

Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali and Sonaro variety. The Developmental time in this

study did not show any significant difference (P>0.05) in varieties. These results

agree with work of [189] who reported the susceptibility of four local mango

132

varieties of Ghana and developmental time of B.invdence. Adults emerged from

puparia at a mean eclosion age of 8 days conforming work by [222]who reported

a puparia to adult duration of 7-9days. This suggests that irrespective of how

long a puparia takes to form in different varieties. The duration from puparia to

adults is relatively stable or takes about the same time. Based on the results of

the number of puparia recovered and infestation indices, it could be concluded

that Sonaro was least susceptible variety to B.dorsalis followed by Beganpali,

Sindhri and Chunsa variety. Chunsa was most susceptible variety due to high

sugar level. It is therefore suggested that for qualities that confirm some level of

resistance to this devastating pest should be considered for incorporation in

future breeding programmers and integrated pest management strategies. This is

because the use of varietal resistance for the management of B.dorsalis would

have a number of advantages as the method is easy to use, economical and

moreover, it is compatible with other methods of control [159]. High acidity and

low free sugar content in some mango varieties have been shown to negatively

affect larval survival to pupation [223]. [24]found that when a food resource was

too acidic, many larvae of Bactrocera dorsalis failed to pupate, and that even if

they successfully pupated, the puparia were lighter and smaller in size. Kent,

with the highest % sugar level, therefore expected to record the maximum

number of puparia, but the reverse was the case. Keith recorded the least number

of puparia but had the least mean TSS and highest % T.A. values than Kent.

[44]showed that mango resistance to fruit by attack is related to the existence of

resin conducts in the skin, with mangoes exhibiting more resin conducts causing

higher egg mortality of fruit flies. The high susceptibility of “Ataulfo “nin˜ o”

mangoes is probably related to the fact that they possess much less lactiferous

conducts and are sweeter than fertilized mangoes of the same cultivar [44] Host

plant selection by female phytophagous insects involves a three connecting

succession of events in which the first association is governed by volatile plant

chemicals, the central relationship by visual stimuli, and the final association by

non-volatile plant chemicals [224]. Regarding the third connection, recent

support for the preference and performance hypothesis for phytophagous insects

appears to indicate that offspring survive better on preferred plant types, and

females lay more eggs on plant types conducive to increased offspring

performance [225].[123]showed for Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) that

133

offspring performance and preference are related to sugar content was possibly

the case in our study. Therefore, long distance attraction to volatiles emitted by

ripening fruit may also play an important role in determining cultivar

preferences. Our chemical analyses on mango cultivars that exhibited various

degrees of susceptibility, supports the hypothesis of an important role of volatile

chemicals in the host preferences by Bactrocera species. In our study, several

volatile chemicals were correlated with the degree of cultivars susceptibility to

Bactrocera dorsalis species. For instance, the proportion of sugar increased, with

the degree of susceptibility to Bactrocera dorsalis, making this chemical a

suitable candidate to be tested for attraction

134

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The research will never end, in this chapter we present the completion summary

about our research findings and describe the safety measures, proposal, valuable

suggestions and some theories for future to overcome on this serious problem of

pest and will take the advance initiatives against fruit fly for the better

production of this national fruit of Pakistan.

5.1 CONCLUSION

During present study common mango varieties of Sindh; Chunsa, Sindhri,

Beganpali and Sonaro (commonly grown in sindh) were selected for the research

work; because day by day these major varieties rejected in international market

due to the presence of fruit fly pest. The Bactrocera species were seen

commonly in the mango orchards of all over sindh. The population of fruit fly

were recorded during the months of June- September during mango season (2014

and 2015).The experiment were conducted by chemical control eugenol

pheromones (male annihilation technique), which are very effective against the

Bactrocera dorsalis. The environmental conditions were most same, mostly hot

and dry weather in all locations of Sindh. In Mirpur khas fields cultivated thickly

orchards of mango and alternating host plants were occurs throughout year for

fruit flies. It was clearly observed that the population of Bactrocera dorsalis

during June and July in peak position as their host fruit mango hit high point in

Sindh.

Biology of Bactrocera dorsalis on these four varieties were observed under

controlled conditions in laboratory. In this study observe all life stages of

Bactrocera dorsalis and measure morph metrically characteristics of pest. It was

detected that sugar ingredient play energetic role in the growth of Bactrocera

dorsalis. The minimum developmental time was noted on Chunsa, Sindhri, and

Beganpali. The third larval instars were observed most injurious among all larval

135

instars. The nourishing performance of Bactrocera dorsalis showed that Chunsa

was most favorable medium for diet and survival of progeny. We assume that

Bactrocera dorsalis fed voraciously on soft pulpy, fiber less and firm fruits and

more sugar content.

Currently we did a basic and main kind of work towards the control of

Bactrocera dorsalis. It was assumed that mango being distinctive cash fruit of

Pakistan needs a more attention towards the varieties; which are well known in

international market. Present work consist on significant parameter susceptibility

of varieties. Major growing areas of sindh such as Hyderabad, Tando Jam, Tando

Allahayar, Mirpur khas, Naushahro feroze, Khairpur and Sukkur were surveyed

and collected the infested as well as fresh mangoes of Chunsa, Sindhri,

Beganpali and Sonaro varieties for the chemical analysis, growth rate, infestation

rate and consumption of Bactrocera dorsalis (in Laboratory). It was observed

that the mango fruit is very important due to its nutritional values. The sugar,

acid, pH, minerals and vitamins make the mango fruit superb, mango fruit may

be well-thought-out as perfect fruit, providing a extensive series of essential

nutrients and potential health benefits. In addition, it was also observed that total

sugar and ash content as well as temperature play vital role in the development

and growth rate of Bactrocera dorsalis. The highest infested mango varieties

Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali, were recorded. The maximum survival of

Bactrocera dorsalis was recorded in Chunsa but minimum survival percentage in

Sonaro variety. Chunsa, Sindhri, Beganpali looked most suitable medium for the

survival of larvae and oviposition, because more larvae were survived in

Chunsa, Sindhri and Beganpali varieties as compared to Sonaro variety. The

feeding behavior of Bactrocera dorsalis larvae showed that Chunsa and Sindhri

varieties were most favorable food for it and causes severe damage to the pulp of

mango and made it pulpy. We assumed that the mango fruit of these varieties is

very soft firm and tender so it is easily influence by Bactrocera dorsalis that is

why, these are more susceptibility.

136

5.2 SUGGESTIONS

It is suggested that chemical control (sex pheromones) applied properly at

appropriate time, when fruit starts ripening. According to our observations mid

of May is appropriate time for trapping and these pheromones traps should be

weekly changed. In this way we could definitely get rid of these Bactrocera

species.

We have seen during field experiments that the gardeners use chemical control

from beginning of June. It is strongly recommends that gardener aware about

use of insecticides; secondly pesticides should be applied when the infestation is

starts in early stage. It is necessary to control Bactrocera species pests before

reached or crossed the economic thresh hold level. This study provided the

information for developing control integrate pest management programs, about

annihilation of mango pest. The results of this study will be fruit full in control

programming such as control of pest, improved fruit quality and reducing the

injure of mango varieties by Bactrocera dorsalis.

Present study revealed that biology of pest and susceptibility of mango varieties

are two significant components for management of Bactrocera dorsalis because

without knowledge of life stages, it is not conceivable to control Bactrocera

dorsalis. Present study work reveals that due to haphazard usage of insect killer

we could not export our mangoes to developed countries commonly Europe and

America; therefore we have to do present environmental control techniques like

biotic control of Bactrocera dorsalis, such as introduce the parasitoid families of

insects, which helpful for the killing of pupae stage of fruit flies, because fruit

flies eggs and larvae grows in the pulp of fruit but the pupae developmental stage

grows out of pulp, in soil under the canopy of the mango tree; so it will easy for

us we control the fruit flies at pupae developmental stage, by introducing the

pesticides or biological control in the canopies of trees before emergence time of

fruit fly, which will save our crop from infestation and increase quality of

mango fruit and save our environment from pollution. The above results indicate

that the population of Bactrocera dorsalis correspondence with the highest

percentage of sugar and lowest percentage of acid as well as favorable

temperature (30±1ºc). The Bactrocera dorsalis started emerged as the mango

137

fruit starts ripened. This study provides information about emergence of mango

fruit fly, it will be helpful for the integrated pest management programmed

strategies about control of pest; as improved fruit quality, save the susceptible

varieties and reducing the damage of mango varieties from Bactrocera dorsalis.

Finally a critical recommendation for growers, the results of this research study

critically recommended that gardens with unaffected varieties can be more

protected effectively from fruit fly destruction. If cultivated separately it should

be better, than more susceptible and striking host plants in this case integrate the

pest. Growers should have keep net and clean their orchards they have never

harvested the other crops in orchards and also clean the bushes and shrubs.

Regularly spraying on the pesticides on orchards before the infestation.

Exporting system of agriculture are unstable, formers does not get proper

incomes from exporting fruits, for that purpose it should be needed to establish

Growers Marketing Association (GMA). For this purpose government encourage

and help; technically and financially for securing agriculture products from the

formers and selling it profitably to their behalf in the country and abroad.

Farmers associations operating in the country may group themselves together to

form federation of Pakistan Farmers Association (FPFA). The federation of

Pakistan farmers association should make it a point to formulating suggestion /

recommendations at least three months before the national budget to be given to

policy makers enabling them (the policy makers) to farmers –friendly budgets.

5.3 FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Research will never stop, through research we will aware about new thing and

new implements which will help for us socially and economically. The

correlation between chemical composition of varieties and susceptibility is found

in this research. It is capable for further research study. Future research work

should be conducted on the chemical characteristics that presented the difference

work among the susceptibility groups. It should be needed to observe this

relationship by conducting analyses in the other mango varieties. The

susceptibility characteristics of mango cultivars identify in more research studies

138

by selecting the four and five chemical characteristics for favoring of Bactrocera

species and Bactrocera dorsalis respectively.

Further research work is needed to detect compound substances, which play

important part in determining the potential role of them by attraction. The

behavariol manipulations is use of stimuli to manipulate the behavior of a pest

for this purpose of defensive a valued resource used, among the most commonly

used procedures in behavioral management for pest controlling, trap collecting

and mass trapping will be suggested and it should apply individually in varieties.

Trap cropping and mass trapping could be mutually to accomplish better

ecologically friendly pest controllers. Research work should be needed to

conduct experiments in fields to find out the least, moderate and highly

succeptiptible mango varieties against fruit flies. Research work should be

needed on supplementary control actions such as devastation of fallen fruit,

biochemical applications, or augmentative releases of bio control managers can

be focused on the orchard outside to stop accumulation of pest population and to

interrupt flies moving from adjacent areas. It will be possible when government

make the application of bioregional pest management.

5.4 SUMMARY

Currently we did basic work of research towards the control of Bactrocera

dorsalis and improved the fruit quality method. The prevention and control of

Bactrocera dorsalis can consist such as eliminating initial contamination

lowering temperature heat treatment of mango varieties. We assumed that the

mango fruit being one of the cash fruit of Pakistan particularly of Sindh and

Punjab, it needs more concentration to do more research for saving varieties and

controlling Bactrocera dorsalis. It is recommended that the Bactrocera dorsalis

is easy to control at pupal stage by bio-control agents, by which no emergence

occurred more and easy to control at this stage because this stage is out of the

fruit and in soil under the canopy of tree. Present work reveals that due to usage

of pesticides and insecticides it is impossible to exported mango fruits to

developed countries mostly Europe and America and Asian countries.

Consequently we should have introduce approachable control techniques like sex

139

Pheromones for male annihilation (Eugenole trap) and biological control of

Bactrocera dorsalis which will not only save our mango fruit plague, but save

the quantity and quality of mango fruit as well as save our environment.

Therefore suggested that for qualities that confer some level resistance to these

divesting pest management strategies. This is because the use of varietal

resistance for the managing of B.dorsalis would have a number of benefits; this

method is easy to use and better economically methods of control.

140

REFERENCES

[1] J. Ahmed, H. S. Ramaswamy, and N. Hiremath, “The effect of high

pressure treatment on rheological characteristics and colour of mango

pulp,” International journal of food science & technology, vol. 40, no. 8,

pp. 885-895, 2005.

[2] R. Balal, M. Khan, M. Shahid et al., “Mango cultivation in Pakistan,”

Institute of Horticultural Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad,

2011.

[3] A. Ghafoor, K. Mustafa, I. Zafar et al., “Determinants of mango export

from Pakistan,” J. agric. Res, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 105-119, 2010.

[4] I. Iuss, “FAO, 2006,” World base reference for soil resources. Report on

World Soil Resources. FAO. Rome, Italy, 2006.

[5] M. Smith, A. Segeren, L. Santos Pereira et al., “Report on the Expert

Consultation on Procedures for Revision of FAO Guidelines for

Prediction of Crop Water Requirements. Rome, Italy, 28-31 May 1990,”

1991.

[6] M. Shafique, M. Ibrahim, M. Helali et al., “Studies on the physiological

and biochemical composition of different mango cultivars at various

maturity levels,” Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial

Research, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 101-108, 2006.

[7] A. Robinson, Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, 1989.

[8] N. Berardini, M. Knödler, A. Schieber et al., “Utilization of mango peels

as a source of pectin and polyphenolics,” Innovative Food Science &

Emerging Technologies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 442-452, 2005.

[9] G. Stonehouse, and J. Pemberton, “Strategic planning in SMEs–some

empirical findings,” Management Decision, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 853 -861,

2002.

[10] M. Younas, and M. Yaqoob, “Feed resources of livestock in the Punjab,

Pakistan,” Livestock research for rural development, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.

2005, 2005.

141

[11] M. A. Khan, M. Ashfaq, W. Akram et al., “Management of fruit flies

(Diptera: Tephritidae) of the most perishable fruits,” Entomological


[12] P. Dorosh, and A. Salam, “Wheat markets and price stabilisation in

Pakistan: An analysis of policy options,” The Pakistan Development

Review, pp. 71-87, 2008.

[13] F. Muhammad, M. Ibrahim, and M. Pervez, “Effect of fungicides on

mango malformation,” Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences

(Pakistan), 1999.

[14] M. S. Jilani, F. Bibi, and K. Waseem, “Evaluation of physico-chemical

characteristics of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars grown in DI

Khan,” J. agric. Res, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 201-207, 2010.

[15] I. A. Rajwana, I. A. Khan, A. U. Malik et al., “Morphological and

biochemical markers for varietal characterization and quality assessment

of potential indigenous mango (Mangifera indica) germplasm,” Int J

Agric Biol, vol. 13, pp. 151-158, 2011.

[16] Z. Mirani, “Study of diffusion and adoption of sustainable agricultural

practice (Male Annihilation Technique),” International Journal of

Education and Development using ICT, vol. 3, no. 2, 2007.

[17] M. Jiskani, M. Pathan, K. Wagan et al., "Documentation of identified and

unidentified diseases of mango in Sindh, Pakistan." pp. 176-190.

[18] R. H. Painter, Insect resistance in crop plants: LWW, 1951.

[19] C. Sánchez-Moreno, J. A. Larrauri, and F. Saura-Calixto, “Free radical

scavenging capacity and inhibition of lipid oxidation of wines, grape

juices and related polyphenolic constituents,” Food Research

International, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 407-412, 1999.

[20] A. Hossain, “Manual on mango cultivation in Bangladesh,” Division of

Horticulture, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur,

Gazipur, pp. 40, 1989.

[21] J. A. Larrauri, I. Goñi, N. Martín-Carrón et al., “Measurement of health-

promoting properties in fruit dietary fibres: antioxidant capacity,

fermentability and glucose retardation index,” Journal of the Science of

Food and Agriculture, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 515-519, 1996.

[22] A. C. Hulme, “The biochemistry of fruits and their products. Vol. 2,” The

biochemistry of fruits and their products. Vol. 2., 1971.

142

[23] K. S. Abbasi, N. Anjum, S. Sammi et al., “Effect of coatings and

packaging material on the keeping quality of mangoes (Mangifera indica

L.) stored at low temperature,” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, vol. 10, no.

2, pp. 129-138, 2011.

[24] A. G. Ibrahim, A. Rahman, and M. Dzur, “Laboratory studies of the

effects of selected tropical fruits on the larvae of Dacus dorsalis,

Hendel,” Pertanika, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90-94, 1982.

[25] N. H. Daud, C. S. Aung, A. K. Hewavitharana et al., “Mango extracts and

the mango component mangiferin promote endothelial cell migration,”

Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 5181-5186,

2010.

[26] M. Ishaq, M. Usman, M. Asif et al., “Integrated pest management of

mango against mealy bug and fruit fly,” Inter. J. Agri. Biol, vol. 63, pp.

452-455, 2004.

[27] M. Fang, “A non-pesticide method for the control of melon fly,” Special

Publication of Taichung District Agriculture Improvement Station, vol.

16, pp. 193-205, 1989.

[28] M. Aluja, H. Celedonio-Hurtado, P. Liedo et al., “Seasonal population

fluctuations and ecological implications for management of Anastrepha

fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in commercial mango orchards in

Southern Mexico,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 89, no. 3, pp.

654-667, 1996.

[29] J. M. Stonehouse, J. D. Mumford, and G. Mustafa, “Economic losses to

tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan,” Crop Protection,

vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 159-164, 1998.

[30] B. Fletcher, “The biology of dacine fruit flies,” Annual review of

entomology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 115-144, 1987.

[31] D. Hardy, “Studies in Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae),”

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, vol. 51, pp.

181-205, 1949.

[32] A. Verghese, “Host plant resistance to pest in fruits crops: An IPM

components,” Integrated pest management in horticultural ecosystems,

pp. 24-33, 2001.

[33] I. M. White, and M. M. Elson-Harris, Fruit flies of economic significance:

their identification and bionomics: CAB International, 1992.

143

[34] L. Christenson, and R. H. Foote, “Biology of fruit flies,” Annual review

of entomology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 171-192, 1960.

[35] V. Kapoor, “Indian Tephritidae with their recorded hosts,” Oriental

insects, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 207-251, 1970.

[36] A. Allwood, "Biology and ecology: Prerequisites for understanding and

managing fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)." pp. 95-101.

[37] M. Jiskani, “Mango orchards on the verge of extinction,” Dawn

Economic and Business Review, 2002.

[38] A. Kafi, “Progress and problems in controlling fruit flies infestation,”

FAO, RAPA, Bangkock, pp. 16-19, 1986.

[39] M. H. Leghari, S. A. Sheikh, A. H. Soomro et al., “Quality Attributes of

Different Immature Mango Varieties,” Journal of Basic & Applied

Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 52, 2013.

[40] H. Batra, “THE population, behaviour, host specificity and development

potential of fruit flies bred at constant temperature in winter,” Indian

Journal of Entomology, vol. 26, no. pt. 2, 1964.

[41] H. YE, and J. H. LIU, “Population dynamics of the oriental fruit fly,

Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Kunming area,

southwestern China,” Insect Science, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 387-392, 2005.

[42] P. C. Hely, G. Pasfield, and J. G. Gellatley, Insect pests of fruit and

vegetables in NSW: Inkata Press, 1982.

[43] V. C. Kapoor, D. Hardy, M. Agarwal et al., “Fruit fly (Diptera:

Tephritidae) systematics of the Indian subcontinent,” Fruit fly (Diptera:

Tephritidae) systematics of the Indian subcontinent., 1981.

[44] D. Joel, “Resin ducts in the mango fruit: a defence system,” Journal of

Experimental Botany, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1707-1718, 1980.

[45] R. d. S. Carvalho, A. Nascimento, J. Morgante et al., “Susceptibility of

different mango varieties (Mangifera indica) to the attack of the fruit fly,

Anastrepha obliqua,” Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of their

Biology and Management, pp. 325-31, 1996.

[46] Z. Iqbal, A. Saleem, and A. Dasti, “Assessment of mango malformation in

eight districts of Punjab (Pakistan),” Int. J. Agric. Biol, vol. 6, no. 4, pp.

620-623, 2004.

144

[47] C. Rossetto, N. Bortoletto, C. Carvalho et al., "Mango resistance to fruit

flies. I Varietal selection and mechanisms of resistance." pp. 575-580.

[48] R. Burn, “National Fly Control Programme: Report on Data Collection

and Analysis,” Entomology Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural

Resources, Réduit, Mauritius, 1997.

[49] A. Verghese, D. Knagaraju, H. Madhura et al., “Wind speed as an

independent variable to forecast the trap catch of the fruit fly (Bactrocera

dorsalis),” Indian journal of agricultural science, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 172 -

175, 2006.

[50] D. Hardy, "Contribution of Taxonomic Studies to the Integrated Pest

Management of Fruit Flies, With Emphasis on the Asia-pacific Region:

Editors, S." pp. 14-16.

[51] A. Allwood, A. Chinajariyawong, S. Kritsaneepaiboon et al., “Host plant

records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia,” Raffles

Bulletin of Zoology, vol. 47, no. Supplement 7, pp. 1-92, 1999.

[52] A. Verghese, H. Madhura, P. K. Jayanthi et al., "Fruit flies of economic

significance in India, with special reference to Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendel)." pp. 317-324.

[53] P. Smith, “Behavioural partitioning of the day and circadian

rhythmicity,” Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies and control, vol.

3, pp. 325-341, 1989.

[54] A. Verghese, K. Sreedevi, and D. Nagaraju, "Pre and post harvest IPM

for the mango fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)." pp. 10-15.

[55] P. F. Duyck, P. David, and S. Quilici, “A review of relationships between

interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera:

Tephritidae),” Ecological Entomology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 511-520, 2004.

[56] R. I. Vargas, L. Leblanc, R. Putoa et al., “Impact of Introduction

ofBactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Classical Biological

Control Releases ofFopius arisanus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on

Economically Important Fruit Flies in French Polynesia,” Journal of

economic entomology, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 670-679, 2007.

[57] J.-F. Vayssières, G. Goergen, O. Lokossou et al., “A new Bactrocera

species in Benin among mango fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) species,”

Fruits, vol. 60, no. 06, pp. 371-377, 2005.

145

[58] K. Mahmood, and Mishkatullah, “Population dynamics of three species of

genus Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in BARI, Chakwal

(Punjab),” Pakistan Journal of Zoology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 123-126,

2007.

[59] R. Syed, M. Ghani, and M. Murtaza, “Studies on the Trypetids and their

natural enemies in West Pakistan. III. Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus

(Saunders),” Technical Bulletin, Commonwealth Institute of Biological

Control, no. 13, pp. 1-16, 1970.

[60] F. Panhwar, "Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) attack on fruits

and its control in Sindh, Pakistan. Publisher," Digital Verlag GmbH,

Germany, www. chemlin. de, 2005.

[61] D. Sarker, M. Rahman, and J. Barman, “Efficacy of different bagging

materials for the control of mango fruit fly,” Bangladesh Journal of

Agricultural Research, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 165-168, 2009.

[62] K. Afreh-Nuamah, “Pests of citrus species-Rutaceae,” Major Pests of

Food and Selected Fruit and Industrial Crops in West Africa (edited by

D. Obeng-Ofori). City Printers Ltd, Accra, Ghana, pp. 119-126, 2007.

[63] M. Bateman, “The ecology of fruit flies,” Annual review of entomology,

vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 493-518, 1972.

[64] M. Kannan, and N. V. Rao, “Ecological studies on mango fruit fly,

Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel,” Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, vol.

14, no. 2, pp. 340-342, 2006.

[65] M. S. QURESHI, B. THISTLETON, S. S. SYEDA et al., “Managing mango

leafhoppers and other associated species affected through systemic

insecticides in mango orchards at Darwin, Australia,” INSTRUCTIONS

TO CONTRIBUTORS/AUTHORS, pp. 81, 2011.

[66] I. Doreyappa Gowda, and A. Huddar, “Studies on ripening changes in

mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruits,” Journal of Food Science and

Technology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 135-137, 2001.

[67] L. F. Solter, J. V. Maddox, and M. L. McManus, “Host Specificity of

Microsporidia (Protista: Microspora) from European Populations

ofLymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) to Indigenous North

American Lepidoptera,” Journal of invertebrate pathology, vol. 69, no. 2,

pp. 135-150, 1997.

146

[68] A. E. Hajek, L. Butler, S. R. Walsh et al., “Host range of the gypsy moth

(Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) pathogen Entomophaga maimaiga

(Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales) in the field versus laboratory,”

Environmental Entomology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 709-721, 1996.

[69] K. Chauhcin, and G. Cahoon, “Mineral status of mango cultivars in

Rajasthan,” Haryana J. Hort. Sci, vol. 16, no. 1-2, pp. 20-24, 1987.

[70] M. Aluja, T. C. Leskey, and C. Vincent, Biorational tree-fruit pest

management: CABI, 2009.

[71] I. H. Kaiser, and J. N. Cummings, “pH, carbon dioxide, oxygen,

hemoglobin and plasma electrolytes in blood of pregnant goats and their

fetuses,” American Journal of Physiology--Legacy Content, vol. 195, no.

2, pp. 481-486, 1958.

[72] N. Gammon, G. Volk, E. McCubbin et al., “Soil factors affecting

molybdenum uptake by cauliflower,” Soil Science Society of America

Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 302-305, 1954.

[73] C. Pongnarin, “Biological control of oriental fruit files (Bactrocera

dorsalis (Hendel)) by the extracts of neem, sugar apple and mnitweed,”

2006.

[74] I. White, and M. Elson–Harris, “Fruit flies of Economic significance.

Their identification and bionomics. CAB,” International, UK, 1994.

[75] R. A. Drew, and D. L. Hancock, “The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of

fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in As ia,” Bulletin of

entomological research supplement series, vol. 2, pp. 1-68, 1994.

[76] A. Zimek, and K. Weber, “In contrast to the nematode and fruit fly all 9

intron positions of the sea anemone lamin gene are conserved in human

lamin genes,” European journal of cell biology, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 305-

309, 2008.

[77] L. Steiner, and L. Christenson, "Potential usefulness of the sterile fly

release method in fruit fly eradication programs." pp. 17-18.

[78] M. Bateman, "Dispersal and species interaction as factors in the

establishment and success of tropical fruit flies in new areas." pp. 106-

112.

[79] K. Al-Zaghal, and T. Mustafa, “Flight activity of the olive fruit fly (Dacus

oleae Gmelin) in Jordan [comparison between two trapping techniques:

clarifying the pest problems and its control],” 1986.

147

[80] H. Albrecht, A. Andam, U. Binder et al., “Observation of B0-B0 mixing,”

Physics Letters B, vol. 192, no. 1-2, pp. 245-252, 1987.

[81] L. Steiner, W. Mitchell, and A. Baumhover, “Progress of fruit-fly control

by irradiation sterilization in Hawaii and the Marianas Islands,” The

International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 13, no. 7-8,

pp. 427-434, 1962.

[82] O. Iwahashi, “Movement of the Oriental fruit fly adults among islets of

the Ogasawara Islands,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.

176-179, 1972.

[83] A. Yao, Y. Hsu, and W. Lee, “Moving abilities of sterile Oriental Fruit

Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae),” Natl Sci Counc Monthly (Taiwan), vol. 5, pp.

668-673, 1977.

[84] H. A. Bess, R. Van Den Bosch, and F. H. Haramoto, “Fruit fly parasites

and their activities in Hawaii,” 1961.

[85] M. Aluja, J. Arredondo, F. Díaz-Fleischer et al., “Susceptibility of 15

mango (Sapindales: Anacardiaceae) cultivars to the attack by Anastrepha

ludens and Anastrepha obliqua (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the role of

underdeveloped fruit as pest reservoirs: Management implications,”

Journal of economic entomology, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 375-388, 2014.

[86] H. Eckey-Kaltenbach, D. Ernst, W. Heller et al., “Biochemical plant

responses to ozone (IV. Cross-induction of defensive pathways in parsley

(Petroselinum crispum L.) plants),” Plant Physiology, vol. 104, no. 1, pp.

67-74, 1994.

[87] S. J. Goncalves-Alvim, R. G. Collevatti, and G. W. Fernandes, “Effects of

genetic variability and habitat of Qualea parviflora (Vochysiaceae) on

herbivory by free-feeding and gall-forming insects,” Annals of botany,

vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 259-268, 2004.

[88] O. d. Ponti, “Resistance in Cucumis sativus L. to Tetranychus urticae

Koch. 4. The genuineness of the resistance,” Euphytica, vol. 27, no. 2, pp.

435-439, 1978.

[89] P. Mutikainen, M. Walls, J. Ovaska et al., “Herbivore resistance in

Betula pendula: effect of fertilization, defoliation, and plant genotype,”

Ecology, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 49-65, 2000.

148

[90] H. Sadrnia, A. Rajabipour, A. Jafary et al., “Classification and analysis

of fruit shapes in long type watermelon using image processing,” Int. J.

Agric. Biol, vol. 1, pp. 68-70, 2007.

[91] D. W. Tallamy, and M. J. Raupp, Phytochemical induction by herbivores:

Wiley New York, 1991.

[92] R. Karban, and I. Baldwin, “Induced Responses to Herbivory University

of Chicago Press Chicago,” IL Google Scholar, 1997.

[93] P. Feeny, “Ecological opportunism and chemical constraints on the host

associations of swallowtail butterflies,” Swallowtail butterflies: their

ecology and evolutionary biology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, pp.

9-15, 1995.

[94] E. Städler, “Behavioral responses of insects to plant secondary

compounds,” Herbivores: Their Interactions with Secondary Plant

Metabolites: Ecological and Evolutionary Processes, vol. 2, pp. 45-88,

1992.

[95] L. P. Pedigo, and M. R. Zeiss, Analyses in insect ecology and

management, 1996.

[96] A. Ghani, and A. Wahid, “Varietal differences for cadmium-induced

seedling mortality and foliar-toxicity symptoms in mungbean (Vigna

radiata),” International Journal of Agriculture and Biology (Pakistan),

2007.

[97] S. Mohan, A. Sirohi, and H. Gaur, “Successful management of mango

mealy bug, Drosicha mangiferae by Photorhabdus luminescens, a

symbiotic bacterium from entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis

indica,” Int. J. Nematol, vol. 14, pp. 195-198, 2004.

[98] K. Karar, A. Gupta, A. Kumar et al., “Characterization and identification

of the sources of chromium, zinc, lead, cadmium, nickel, manganese and

iron in PM10 particulates at the two sites of Kolkata, India,”

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 120, no. 1-3, pp. 347-

360, 2006.

[99] R. Dean, “Bionomics of the apple maggot in eastern New York,” 1973.

[100] F. M. Eskafi, “Infestation of citrus by Anastrepha spp. and Ceratitis

capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in high coastal plains of Guatemala,”


149

[101] O. E. Liburd, S. R. Alm, and R. A. Casagrande, “Susceptibility of

highbush blueberry cultivars to larval infestation by Rhagoletis mendax

(Diptera: Tephritidae),” Environmental Entomology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.

817-821, 1998.

[102] J. Rull, and R. J. Prokopy, “Host-finding and ovipositional-boring

responses of apple maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae) to different apple

genotypes,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1695-1702,

2004.

[103] M. Aluja, and R. L. Mangan, “Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) host status

determination: critical conceptual, methodological, and regulatory

considerations,” Annu. Rev. Entomol., vol. 53, pp. 473-502, 2008.

[104] L. Guillén, M. Aluja, J. Rull et al., “Influence of walnut cultivar on

infestation by Rhagoletis completa: behavioural and management

implications,” Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, vol. 140, no. 3,

pp. 207-217, 2011.

[105] M. K. Hennessey, R. J. Knight, and R. J. Schnell, “Antibiosis to

Caribbean fruit fly in avocado germplasm,” HortScience, vol. 30, no. 5,

pp. 1061-1062, 1995.

[106] A. Birke, M. Aluja, P. Greany et al., “Long aculeus and behavior of

Anastrepha ludens render gibberellic acid ineffective as an agent to

reduce ‘Ruby Red’grapefruit susceptibility to the attack of this pestiferous

fruit fly in commercial groves,” Journal of economic entomo logy, vol. 99,

no. 4, pp. 1184-1193, 2006.

[107] R. I. Vargas, D. Miyashita, and T. Nishida, “Life history and

demographic parameters of three laboratory-reared tephritids (Diptera:

Tephritidae),” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 77,

no. 6, pp. 651-656, 1984.

[108] A. R. Clarke, A. Allwood, A. Chinajariyawong et al., “Seasonal

abundance and host use patterns of seven Bactrocera Macquart species

(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia,” 2001.

[109] H. Willard, "Some Observations in Hawaii on the Ecology of the

Mediterranean Fruit FlyCeratitis capitata Wiedemann and its Parasites."

pp. 505-515.

[110] G. R. Mishra, M. Suresh, K. Kumaran et al., “Human protein reference

database—2006 update,” Nucleic acids research, vol. 34 , no. suppl_1,

pp. D411-D414, 2006.

150

[111] W. Rattanapun, W. Amornsak, and A. R. Clarke, “Bactrocera dorsalis

preference for and performance on two mango varieties at three stages of

ripeness,” Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, vol. 131, no. 3, pp.

243-253, 2009.

[112] D. Krainacker, J. Carey, and R. Vargas, “Effect of larval host on life

history traits of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata,”

Oecologia, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 583-590, 1987.

[113] N. Bruzzone, A. Economopoulos, and H. S. Wang , “Mass rearing

Ceratitis capitata: reuse of the finisher larval diet,” Entomologia

experimentalis et applicata, vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 103-106, 1990.

[114] C. T. Hing, “Effects of host fruit and larval density on development and

survival of Bactocera sp.(Malaysian B).(Diptera: Tephritidae),”

Pertanika (Malaysia), 1991.

[115] M. Khan, R. Shahjahan, and M. Wadud, “Effect of larval dietary protein

sources on different aspects of oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae),” Bangladesh Journal of Entomology, vol.

9, pp. 39-44, 1999.

[116] R. Kaspi, S. Mossinson, T. Drezner et al., “Effects of larval diet on

development rates and reproductive maturation of male and female

Mediterranean fruit flies,” Physiological Entomology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp.

29-38, 2002.

[117] A. Saleem, and K. Akhtar, "Mango diseases and their control."

[118] E. O. Wilson, “The current state of biological diversity,” Biodiversity,

vol. 521, no. 1, pp. 3-18, 1988.

[119] A. DiTommaso, and J. E. Losey, “Oviposition preference and larval

performance of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) on two invasive

swallow‐wort species,” Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, vol.

108, no. 3, pp. 205-209, 2003.

[120] S. Van Nouhuys, M. C. Singer, and M. Nieminen, “Spatial and temporal

patterns of caterpillar performance and the suitability of two host plant

species,” Ecological Entomology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 193-202, 2003.

[121] G. P. Fitt, “The Ecology of Northern Australian Dacinae (Diptera:

Tephritidae) I. Host Phenology and Utilization of Opilia amentacea

Roxb.(Opiliaceae) by Dacus (Bactrocera) opiliae Drew & Hardy, with

151

notes on some other species,” Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 29, no.

5, pp. 691-705, 1981.

[122] T. M. Fontellas-Brandalha, and F. S. Zucoloto, “Selection of oviposition

sites by wild Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart)(Diptera: Tephritidae) based

on the nutritional composition,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 33, no. 5,

pp. 557-562, 2004.

[123] I. S. Joachim-Bravo, O. A. Fernandes, S. A. BORTOLI et al., “Oviposition

behavior of Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae):

association between oviposition preference and larval performance in

individual females,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 559 -564,

2001.

[124] R. J. Prokopy, and E. D. Owens, “Visual detection of plants by

herbivorous insects,” Annual review of entomology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp.

337-364, 1983.

[125] E. B. Jang, and D. M. Light, “Behavioral responses of female oriental

fruit flies to the odor of papayas at three ripeness stages in a laboratory

flight tunnel (Diptera: Tephritidae),” Journal of Insect Behavior, vol. 4,

no. 6, pp. 751-762, 1991.

[126] R. J. Prokopy, and R. I. Vargas, “Attraction ofCeratitis capitata (Diptera:

Tephritidae) flies to odor of coffee fruit,” Journal of chemical ecology,

vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 807-820, 1996.

[127] M. L. Cornelius, J. J. Duan, and R. H. Messing, “Visual stimuli and the

response of female oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to fruit -

mimicking traps,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 92, no. 1, pp.

121-129, 1999.

[128] R. A. Drew, R. J. Prokopy, and M. C. Romig, “Attraction of fruit flies of

the genus Bactrocera to colored mimics of host fruit,” Entomologia


[129] T. Brévault, and S. Quilici, “Influence of habitat pattern on orientation

during host fruit location in the tomato fruit fly, Neoceratitis

cyanescens,” Bulletin of entomological research, vol. 97, no. 06, pp. 637 -

642, 2007.

[130] R. Bidwell, "Plant physiology (2nd edn)," Macmillan Publishing Co.,

Inc.: New York, 1979.

152

[131] A. P. Medlicott, and A. K. Thompson, “Analysis of sugars and organic

acids in ripening mango fruits (Mangifera indica L. var Keitt) by high

performance liquid chromatography,” Journal of the Science of Food and

Agriculture, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 561-566, 1985.

[132] H. Yashoda, T. Prabha, and R. Tharanathan, “Mango ripening–Role of

carbohydrases in tissue softening,” Food chemistry, vol. 102, no. 3, pp.

691-698, 2007.

[133] F. J. Messina, and V. P. Jones, “Relationship between fruit phenology

and infestation by the apple maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Utah,”

Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 742-

752, 1990.

[134] F. J. Messina, D. G. Alston, and V. P. Jones, “Oviposition by the western

cherry fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in relation to host development,”

Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, pp. 197-208, 1991.

[135] F. Díaz‐Fleischer, and M. Aluja, “Clutch size in frugivorous insects as a

function of host firmness: the case of the tephritid fly Anastrepha ludens,”

Ecological Entomology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 268-277, 2003.

[136] S. Balagawi, S. Vijaysegaran, R. A. Drew et al., “Influence of fruit traits

on oviposition preference and offspring performance of Bactrocera tryoni

(Froggatt)(Diptera: Tephritidae) on three tomato (Lycopersicon

lycopersicum) cultivars,” Austral Entomology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 97-103,

2005.

[137] G. Pritchard, “The ecology of a natural population of Queensland fruit

fly, Dacus tryoni II. The distribution of eggs and its relation to

behaviour,” Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 293-311,

1969.

[138] D. R. Papaj, and H. Alonso-Pimentel, “Why walnut flies superparasitize:

time savings as a possible explanation,” Oecologia, vol. 109, no. 1, pp.

166-174, 1996.

[139] D. R. Papaj, B. I. Katsoyannos, and J. Hendrichs, “Use of fruit wounds in

oviposition by Mediterranean fruit flies,” Entomologia experimentalis et

applicata, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 203-209, 1989.

[140] T. E. Shelly, “Defense of oviposition sites by female oriental fruit flies

(Diptera: Tephritidae),” Florida Entomologist, pp. 339-346, 1999.

153

[141] S. R. Jones, and K. C. Kim, “Aculeus wear and oviposition in four species

of Tephritidae (Diptera),” Annals of the Entomological Society of

America, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 104-107, 1994.

[142] D. Joel, "SECRETORY DUCTS OF MANGO FRUITS-DEFENSE SYSTEM

EFFECTIVE AGAINST MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT-FLY." pp. 44-45.

[143] C. M. Herrera, “Defense of ripe fruit from pests: its significance in

relation to plant-disperser interactions,” The American Naturalist, vol.

120, no. 2, pp. 218-241, 1982.

[144] N. Anjum, M. Tariq, and L. Asia, “Effect of various coating materials on

keeping quality of mangoes (Mangifera indica) stored at low

temperature,” Am. J. Food Technol, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 52-58, 2006.

[145] S. Jha, S. Chopra, and A. Kingsly, “Modeling of color values for

nondestructive evaluation of maturity of mango,” Journal of Food

engineering, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 22-26, 2007.

[146] M. Reid, “Maturation and Maturity Indices. University of California,”

Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication, vol. 3311, 2002.

[147] D. Slaughter, “Nondestructive maturity assessment methods for mango: A

Review of Literature and Identification of Future Research Needs,”

National Mango Board, Orlando, FL, USA, 2009.

[148] M. I. Gil, F. A. Tomás-Barberán, B. Hess-Pierce et al., “Antioxidant

capacities, phenolic compounds, carotenoids, and vitamin C contents of

nectarine, peach, and plum cultivars from California,” Journal of

Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 50, no. 17, pp. 4976-4982, 2002.

[149] R. El-Buluk, E. Babiker, and A. El Tinay, “Biochemical and physical

changes in fruits of four guava cultivars during growth and

development,” Food chemistry, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 279-282, 1995.

[150] M. Lebrun, A. Plotto, K. Goodner et al., “Discrimination of mango fru it

maturity by volatiles using the electronic nose and gas chromatography,”

Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 122-131, 2008.

[151] Y. Malevski, L. BRITO, M. Peleg et al., “External color as maturity index

of mango,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1316-1318, 1977.

[152] S. Jha, A. Kingsly, and S. Chopra, “Physical and mechanical properties

of mango during growth and storage for determination of maturity,”

Journal of Food engineering, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 73-76, 2006.

154

[153] E. Dick, A. N’DaAdopo, B. Camara et al., “Influence of maturity stage of

mango at harvest on its ripening quality,” Fruits, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 13 -

18, 2009.

[154] O. K. Ahmed, “Evaluation of objective maturity indices for muskmelon

(Cucumis melo) cv.‘Galia’,” Journal of King Abdulaziz University, vol. 2,

pp. 317-326, 2009.

[155] D. Ray, and S. Mukherjee, “Nutrient status in leaf and soil of some

cultivars of mango in relation to yield,” Indian Journal of Horticulture,

vol. 44, no. 1and2, pp. 1-8, 1987.

[156] H. Haag, M. Souza, Q. Carmello et al., “Removal of macro-and micro-

nutrients by fruits of four mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars,” Anais

da Escola Superior de Agriculture'Luiz de Queiroz', vol. 47, no. 2, pp.

459-477, 1990.

[157] P. Mamiro, L. Fweja, B. Chove et al., “Physical and chemical

characteristics of off vine ripened mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit

(Dodo),” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 6, no. 21, 2007.

[158] M. Gössinger, F. Mayer, N. Radocha et al., “Consumer's color

acceptance of strawberry nectars from puree,” Journal of Sensory

Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 78-92, 2009.

[159] R. Kumar, Insect pest control, with special reference to African

agriculture: Edward Arnold (Publishers), 1984.

[160] N. Hala, S. Quilici, A. Gnago et al., "Status of fruit flies (Diptera:

Tephritidae) in Côte d’Ivoire and implications for mango exports." pp.

10-15.

[161] M. Ndiaye, E. O. Dieng, and G. Delhove, “Population dynamics and on -

farm fruit fly integrated pest management in mango orchards in the

natural area of Niayes in Senegal,” Pest Management in Horticultural

Ecosystems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2008.

[162] H. Weems, J. Heppner, J. Nation et al., “Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera

dorsalis (Hendel)(Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae),” Featured Creatures:

Entomology and Nematology. Entomology circulars, vol. 21, 2012.

[163] G. Goergen, J.-F. Vayssières, D. Gnanvossou et al., “Bactrocera

invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae), a new invasive fruit fly pest for the

Afrotropical region: host plant range and distribution in West and

155

Central Africa,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 844-854,

2011.

[164] M. Mau, and J. L. Matin, "Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Crop knowledge

master," 2007.

[165] E. Back, and C. Pemberton, “Susceptibility of citrus fruits to the attack of

the Mediterranean fruit fly,” J. agric. Res, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 311-330,

1915.

[166] S. Lux, S. Ekesi, S. Dimbi et al., “Mango-Infesting Fruit Flies in Africa:

Perspectives and Limitations of Biological,” Biological control in IPM

systems in Africa, pp. 277, 2003.

[167] R. Drew, and G. Hooper, “Population studies of fruit flies (Diptera:

Tephritidae) in south-east Queensland,” Oecologia, vol. 56, no. 2-3, pp.

153-159, 1983.



(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia,” Raffles

Bulletin of Zoology, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 207-220, 2001.

[169] I. M. Newell, and F. H. Haramoto, “Biotic factors influencing

populations of Dacus dorsalis in Hawaii,” 1968.

[170] P. D. Greany, “Host plant resistance to tephritids: an under-exploited

control strategy,” fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control,

Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 353-362, 1989.

[171] L. F. Steiner, “Field evaluation of oriental fruit fly insecticides in

Hawaii,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 16-24,

1957.

[172] A. H. Putnam, “Plant Industry Publications.”

[173] R. I. Vargas, S. Mitchell, B. Fujita et al., “Rearing techniques for Dacus

latifrons (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae),” 1990.

[174] V. Kapoor, “Taxonomy and biology of economically important fruit flies

of India,” Israel Journal of Entomology, vol. 35, no. 36, pp. 459 -475,

2005.

[175] R. I. Vargas, and J. R. Carey, “Comparative survival and demographic

statistics for wild oriental fruit fly, Mediterranean fruit fly, and melon fly

(Diptera: Tephritidae) on papaya,” Journal of economic entomology, vol.

83, no. 4, pp. 1344-1349, 1990.

156

[176] S. Ekesi, and S. A. Mohamed, Mass rearing and quality control

parameters for tephritid fruit flies of economic importance in Africa:

INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2011.

[177] M. Dhillon, R. Singh, J. Naresh et al., “The melon fruit fly, Bactrocera

cucurbitae: A review of its biology and management,” Journal of Insect

Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 40, 2005.

[178] M. Faheem, S. Saeed, A. Sajjad et al., “In Search of the Best Hot Water

Treatments for Sindhri and Chaunsa Variety of Mango,” Pakistan

Journal of Zoology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 101-108, 2012.

[179] A. Manrakhan, and N. Price, “Seasonal profiles in production, fruit fly

populations and fruit fly damage on mangoes in Mauritius,” FOOD AND

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, pp. 107, 2001.

[180] T. Yamada, S. Nakagawa, and H. Kamasaki, “Identification of three

species of reared Hawaiian fruit fly pupae,” 1963.

[181] G. Steck, “Mango Fruit Fly, Ceratitis cosyra (Walker)(Insecta: Diptera:

Tephritidae),” Entomology and Nematology Department, UF/IFAS

Extension, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2015.

[182] V. Kalia, “Bionomics of fruit fly Dacus dorsalis on some cultivars of

mango and guava,” Bulletin of Entomology in New Delhi, vol. 33, no. 1 -

2, pp. 79-87, 1992.

[183] K. Abdullah, A. Khan, and M. Akram, “Non-traditional method of fruit fly

control in guava orchards in Dera Ismail Khan,” Pakistan Journal of


[184] K. Nagaraj, S. Jaganath, B. Shafeeq et al., “Incidence of Fruit Fly

(bactrocera spp.) in different Mango Orchards and Varieties,” Trends in

Biosciences, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1072-1074, 2014.

[185] S. T. Seo, G. J. Farias, and E. J. Harris, “Oriental fruit fly: ripening of

fruit and its effect on index of infestation of Hawaiian papayas,” Journal

of economic entomology, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 173-178, 1982.

[186] D. Joel, “The duct systems of the base and stalk of the mango fruit,”

Botanical Gazette, vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 329-333, 1981.

[187] A. Verghese, C. Soumya, S. Shivashankar et al., “Phenolics as chemical

barriers to female fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in mango,” Curr

Sci, vol. 103, pp. 563-566, 2012.

157

[188] M. Shahnawaz, S. A. Sheikh, and S. Nizamani, “Determination of nutritive

values of Jamun fruit (Eugenia jambolana) products,” Pakistan Journal

of Nutrition, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1275-1280, 2009.

[189] F. Ambele, M. Billah, K. Afreh-Nuamah et al., “Susceptibility of four

mango varieties to the Africa invader fly, Bactrocera invadens Drew,

Tsuruta and White (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Ghana,” 2011.

[190] A. A. Nour, K. S. Khalid, and G. A. Osman, “Suitability of some Sudanese

mango varieties for jam making,” Am. J. Ind. Res, vol. 2, pp. 17-23, 2011.

[191] T. Malundo, R. Shewfelt, G. Ware et al., “Sugars and acids influence

flavor properties of mango (Mangifera indica),” Journal of the American

Society for Horticultural Science, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 115-121, 2001.

[192] S. Naz, M. A. Anjum, S. Chohan et al., “Physico-chemical and sensory

profiling of promising mango cultivars grown in peri-urban areas of

Multan, Pakistan,” Pakistan Journal of Botany, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 191-

198, 2014.

[193] S. Nagothu, A. Nemes, J. C. Biswas et al., “Climate change impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation: Sustaining rice production in Bangladesh,”

Bioforsk Rapport, 2014.

[194] E. Ahmed, “Studies on mango fruit fly Ceratitis cosyra in Central

Sudan,” M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture Science University of

Gezira, 2001.

[195] S. Jha, K. Narsaiah, A. Sharma et al., “Quality parameters of mango and

potential of non-destructive techniques for their measurement—a

review,” Journal of food science and technology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1-14,

2010.

[196] M. Mannan, S. Khan, M. Islam et al., “A study on the physico-chemical

characteristics of some mango varieties in Khuhia region,” Pak. J. Biol.

Sci, vol. 6, no. 24, pp. 2034-2039, 2003.

[197] M. Hamdard, M. Rafique, and U. Farooq, “Physico-chemical

characteristics of various mango, Mangifera indica L. varieties,” Journal

of Agricultural Research (Pakistan), 2004.

[198] S. Ali, C. Haq, and S. Hussain, “Physico-chemical studies of some

varieties of mango grown at Shujabad,” Pakistan Journal of Agricultural


158

[199] M. I. Manzur, and S. P. Courtney, “Influence of insect damage in fruits of

hawthorn on bird foraging and seed dispersal,” Oikos, pp. 265-270,

1984.

[200] S. Mir, S. Dar, G. Mir et al., “Biology of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera:

Tephritidae) on cucumber,” Florida Entomologist, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 753 -

758, 2014.

[201] P. Renjhen, “On the morphology of the immature stages of Dacus

(Strumeta) cucurbitae Coq.(the melon fruit fly) with notes on its biology,”

Indian Journal of Entomology, vol. 11, pp. 83-100, 1949.

[202] O. Singh, and T. Teotia, “A simple method of mass culturing melon fruit -

fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillet,” Indian Journal of Entomology, vol. 32,

no. 1, pp. 28-31, 1970.

[203] K. Doharey, “Bionomics of fruit flies (Dacus spp.) on some fruits,”

Indian Journal of Entomology, 1983.

[204] D. Shivarkar, and R. Dumbre, “Bionomics and chemical control of melon

fly,” J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 298-300, 1985.

[205] E. Narayanan, and H. Batra, Fruit flies and their control: Indian Council

of Agricultural Research, 1960.

[206] M. Agarwal, D. Sharma, and O. Rahman, “Melon fruit fly and its

control,” Indian Horticulture, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 10-11, 1987.

[207] A. Langar, H. Sahito, and M. Talpur, “Biology and population of melon

fruit fly on musk melon and Indian squash Intl,” J. Farming Allied Sci,

vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 42-47, 2013.

[208] V. Koul, and K. Bhagat, “Biology of melon fruit fly, Bactrocera (Dacus)

cucurbitae Coquillett (Diptera: Tephritidae) on bottle gourd,” Pest

Management and Economic Zoology, vol. 2, pp. 123-125, 1994.

[209] N. VISHVA, Biology, Behaviour and Management of Melon Fly

Bactrocera (Zendodacus) Vucurbitae (Coquillett (Dipter: Teteraphidae)

on Gherkins: University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, 2005.

[210] V. Shivayya, C. Ashok Kumar, and A. Chakravarthy, “Biology of melon

fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae on different food sources,” Indian Journal of

Plant Protection, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 25-28, 2007.

[211] A. Meats, “The bioclimatic potential of the Queensland fruit fly, Dacus

tryoni,” Australia. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia,

vol. 11, no. 15, pp. 1-61, 1981.

159

[212] S. Saeki, M. Katayama, and M. Okumura, “Effect of temperatures upon

the development of the oriental fruit fly and its possible distribution in the

mainland of Japan,” Chosa kenkyu hokoku.= Research bulletin of the

Plant Protection Service, Japan-Shokubutsu Boeki-sho, Yokohama, 1980.

[213] N. Shehata, M. Younes, and Y. Mahmoud, “Biological studies on the

peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) in Egypt,” J. Appl. Sci. Res,

vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1103-1106, 2008.

[214] M. Waseem, A. Naganagoud, D. Sagar et al., “Biology of melon fly,

Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) on cucumber,” BIOINFOLET-A

Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 232-239, 2012.

[215] R. Hollingsworth, M. Vagalo, and F. Tsatsia, "Biology of melon fly, with

special reference to Solomon Islands." pp. 140-144.

[216] J. RAJAGANAPATHI, and K. KATHIRESAN, “A simple and cost-effective

mass rearing technique for the tephritid fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendel),” Current science, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 266, 2002.

[217] H. Shimada, A. Tanaka, and H. Kamiwada, "Oviposition behaviour and

development of the oriental fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel on Prunus

salicina Lindl [plums]."

[218] R. CRNJAR, “Behavior and sensory physiology of Rhagoletis pomonella

in relation to oviposition stimulants and deterrents in fruit,” Fruit flies of

economic importance 84, vol. 9647, pp. 183, 1986.

[219] W. P. da Silva, D. S. do Amaral, M. E. M. Duarte et al., “Description of

the osmotic dehydration and convective drying of coconut (Cocos

nucifera L.) pieces: a three-dimensional approach,” Journal of Food

Engineering, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 121-131, 2013.

[220] R. Ara, M. Motalab, M. Uddin et al., “Nutritional evaluation of different

mango varieties available in Bangladesh,” International Food Research

Journal, vol. 21, no. 6, 2014.

[221] C. E. Ogaugwu, M. F. Schetelig, and E. A. Wimmer, “Transgenic sexing

system for Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on female-

specific embryonic lethality,” Insect biochemistry and molecular biology ,

vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2013.

[222] M. Billah, K. Afreh-Nuamah, D. Obeng-Ofori et al., “Review of the pest

status, economic impact and management of fruit-infesting flies (Diptera:

160

Tephritidae) in Africa,” African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol.

10, no. 12, pp. 1488-1498, 2015.

[223] M. K. Hennessey, and R. Schnell, “Resistance of immature mango fruits

to Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae),” Florida Entomologist, vol.

84, no. 2, pp. 318, 2001.

[224] S. Finch, and R. Collier, “Host‐plant selection by insects–a theory based

on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects of cruciferous

plants,” Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 91 -

102, 2000.

[225] S. Gripenberg, P. J. Mayhew, M. Parnell et al., “A meta‐analysis of

preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects,” Ecology

letters, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 383-393, 2010.

[1] J. Ahmed, H. S. Ramaswamy, and N. Hiremath, “The effect of high

pressure treatment on rheological characteristics and colour of mango

pulp,” International journal of food science & technology, vol. 40, no. 8,

pp. 885-895, 2005.

[2] R. Balal, M. Khan, M. Shahid et al., “Mango cultivation in Pakistan,”

Institute of Horticultural Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad,

2011.

[3] A. Ghafoor, K. Mustafa, I. Zafar et al., “Determinants of mango export

from Pakistan,” J. agric. Res, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 105-119, 2010.

[4] I. Iuss, “FAO, 2006,” World base reference for soil resources. Report on

World Soil Resources. FAO. Rome, Italy, 2006.

[5] M. Smith, A. Segeren, L. Santos Pereira et al., “Report on the Expert

Consultation on Procedures for Revision of FAO Guidelines for

Prediction of Crop Water Requirements. Rome, Italy, 28-31 May 1990,”

1991.

[6] M. Shafique, M. Ibrahim, M. Helali et al., “Studies on the physiological

and biochemical composition of different mango cultivars at various

maturity levels,” Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial


[7] A. Robinson, Fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control, 1989.

161

[8] N. Berardini, M. Knödler, A. Schieber et al., “Utilization of mango peels

as a source of pectin and polyphenolics,” Innovative Food Science &

Emerging Technologies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 442-452, 2005.

[9] G. Stonehouse, and J. Pemberton, “Strategic planning in SMEs–some

empirical findings,” Management Decision, vol. 40, no. 9, pp. 853 -861,

2002.

[10] M. Younas, and M. Yaqoob, “Feed resources of livestock in the Punjab,

Pakistan,” Livestock research for rural development, vol. 17, no. 2, pp.

2005, 2005.

[11] M. A. Khan, M. Ashfaq, W. Akram et al., “Management of fruit flies

(Diptera: Tephritidae) of the most perishable fruits,” Entomological


[12] P. Dorosh, and A. Salam, “Wheat markets and price stabilisation in

Pakistan: An analysis of policy options,” The Pakistan Development

Review, pp. 71-87, 2008.

[13] F. Muhammad, M. Ibrahim, and M. Pervez, “Effect of fungicides on

mango malformation,” Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences

(Pakistan), 1999.

[14] M. S. Jilani, F. Bibi, and K. Waseem, “Evaluation of physico-chemical

characteristics of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars grown in DI

Khan,” J. agric. Res, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 201-207, 2010.

[15] I. A. Rajwana, I. A. Khan, A. U. Malik et al., “Morphological and

biochemical markers for varietal characterization and quality assessment

of potential indigenous mango (Mangifera indica) germplasm,” Int J

Agric Biol, vol. 13, pp. 151-158, 2011.

[16] Z. Mirani, “Study of diffusion and adoption of sustainable agricultural

practice (Male Annihilation Technique),” International Journal of

Education and Development using ICT, vol. 3, no. 2, 2007.

[17] M. Jiskani, M. Pathan, K. Wagan et al., "Documentation of identified and

unidentified diseases of mango in Sindh, Pakistan." pp. 176-190.

[18] R. H. Painter, Insect resistance in crop plants: LWW, 1951.

[19] C. Sánchez-Moreno, J. A. Larrauri, and F. Saura-Calixto, “Free radical

scavenging capacity and inhibition of lipid oxidation of wines, grape

juices and related polyphenolic constituents,” Food Research

International, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 407-412, 1999.

162

[20] A. Hossain, “Manual on mango cultivation in Bangladesh,” Division of

Horticulture, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur,

Gazipur, pp. 40, 1989.

[21] J. A. Larrauri, I. Goñi, N. Martín-Carrón et al., “Measurement of health-

promoting properties in fruit dietary fibres: antioxidant capacity,

fermentability and glucose retardation index,” Journal of the Science of

Food and Agriculture, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 515-519, 1996.

[22] A. C. Hulme, “The biochemistry of fruits and their products. Vol. 2,” The

biochemistry of fruits and their products. Vol. 2., 1971.

[23] K. S. Abbasi, N. Anjum, S. Sammi et al., “Effect of coat ings and

packaging material on the keeping quality of mangoes (Mangifera indica

L.) stored at low temperature,” Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, vol. 10, no.

2, pp. 129-138, 2011.

[24] A. G. Ibrahim, A. Rahman, and M. Dzur, “Laboratory studies of the

effects of selected tropical fruits on the larvae of Dacus dorsalis,

Hendel,” Pertanika, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 90-94, 1982.

[25] N. H. Daud, C. S. Aung, A. K. Hewavitharana et al., “Mango extracts and

the mango component mangiferin promote endothelial cell migration ,”

Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 5181-5186,

2010.

[26] M. Ishaq, M. Usman, M. Asif et al., “Integrated pest management of

mango against mealy bug and fruit fly,” Inter. J. Agri. Biol, vol. 63, pp.

452-455, 2004.

[27] M. Fang, “A non-pesticide method for the control of melon fly,” Special

Publication of Taichung District Agriculture Improvement Station, vol.

16, pp. 193-205, 1989.

[28] M. Aluja, H. Celedonio-Hurtado, P. Liedo et al., “Seasonal population

fluctuations and ecological implications for management of Anastrepha

fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in commercial mango orchards in

Southern Mexico,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 89, no. 3, pp.

654-667, 1996.

[29] J. M. Stonehouse, J. D. Mumford, and G. Mustafa, “Economic losses to

tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan,” Crop Protection,

vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 159-164, 1998.

163

[30] B. Fletcher, “The biology of dacine fruit flies,” Annual review of

entomology, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 115-144, 1987.

[31] D. Hardy, “Studies in Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae),”

Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, vol. 51, pp.

181-205, 1949.

[32] A. Verghese, “Host plant resistance to pest in fruits crops: An IPM

components,” Integrated pest management in horticultural ecosystems,

pp. 24-33, 2001.

[33] I. M. White, and M. M. Elson-Harris, Fruit flies of economic significance:

their identification and bionomics: CAB International, 1992.

[34] L. Christenson, and R. H. Foote, “Biology of fruit flies,” Annual review

of entomology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 171-192, 1960.

[35] V. Kapoor, “Indian Tephritidae with their recorded hosts,” Oriental

insects, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 207-251, 1970.

[36] A. Allwood, "Biology and ecology: Prerequisites for understanding and

managing fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)." pp. 95-101.

[37] M. Jiskani, “Mango orchards on the verge of extinction,” Dawn

Economic and Business Review, 2002.

[38] A. Kafi, “Progress and problems in controlling fruit flies infestation,”

FAO, RAPA, Bangkock, pp. 16-19, 1986.

[39] M. H. Leghari, S. A. Sheikh, A. H. Soomro et al., “Quality Attributes of

Different Immature Mango Varieties,” Journal of Basic & Applied

Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 52, 2013.

[40] H. Batra, “THE population, behaviour, host specificity and development

potential of fruit flies bred at constant temperature in winter,” Indian

Journal of Entomology, vol. 26, no. pt. 2, 1964.

[41] H. YE, and J. H. LIU, “Population dynamics of the oriental fruit fly,

Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the Kunming area,

southwestern China,” Insect Science, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 387-392, 2005.

[42] P. C. Hely, G. Pasfield, and J. G. Gellatley, Insect pests of fruit and

vegetables in NSW: Inkata Press, 1982.

[43] V. C. Kapoor, D. Hardy, M. Agarwal et al., “Fruit fly (Diptera:

Tephritidae) systematics of the Indian subcontinent,” Fruit fly (Diptera:

Tephritidae) systematics of the Indian subcontinent., 1981.

164

[44] D. Joel, “Resin ducts in the mango fruit: a defence system,” Journal of

Experimental Botany, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1707-1718, 1980.

[45] R. d. S. Carvalho, A. Nascimento, J. Morgante et al., “Susceptibility of

different mango varieties (Mangifera indica) to the attack of the fruit fly,

Anastrepha obliqua,” Fruit Fly Pests: A World Assessment of their

Biology and Management, pp. 325-31, 1996.

[46] Z. Iqbal, A. Saleem, and A. Dasti, “Assessment of mango malformation in

eight districts of Punjab (Pakistan),” Int. J. Agric. Biol, vol. 6, no. 4, pp.

620-623, 2004.

[47] C. Rossetto, N. Bortoletto, C. Carvalho et al., "Mango resistance to fruit

flies. I Varietal selection and mechanisms of resistance." pp. 575-580.

[48] R. Burn, “National Fly Control Programme: Report on Data Collection

and Analysis,” Entomology Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Natural

Resources, Réduit, Mauritius, 1997.

[49] A. Verghese, D. Knagaraju, H. Madhura et al., “Wind speed as an

independent variable to forecast the trap catch of the fruit fly (Bactrocera

dorsalis),” Indian journal of agricultural science, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 172 -

175, 2006.

[50] D. Hardy, "Contribution of Taxonomic Studies to the Integrated Pest

Management of Fruit Flies, With Emphasis on the Asia-pacific Region:

Editors, S." pp. 14-16.

[51] A. Allwood, A. Chinajariyawong, S. Kritsaneepaiboon et al., “Host plant

records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia,” Raffles

Bulletin of Zoology, vol. 47, no. Supplement 7, pp. 1-92, 1999.

[52] A. Verghese, H. Madhura, P. K. Jayanthi et al., "Fruit flies of economic

significance in India, with special reference to Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendel)." pp. 317-324.

[53] P. Smith, “Behavioural partitioning of the day and circadian

rhythmicity,” Fruit flies: their biology, natural enemies and control, vol.

3, pp. 325-341, 1989.

[54] A. Verghese, K. Sreedevi, and D. Nagaraju, "Pre and post harvest IPM

for the mango fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)." pp. 10-15.

[55] P. F. Duyck, P. David, and S. Quilici, “A review of relationships between

interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera:

Tephritidae),” Ecological Entomology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 511-520, 2004.

165

[56] R. I. Vargas, L. Leblanc, R. Putoa et al., “Impact of Introduction

ofBactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Classical Biological

Control Releases ofFopius arisanus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on

Economically Important Fruit Flies in French Polynesia,” Journal of

economic entomology, vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 670-679, 2007.

[57] J.-F. Vayssières, G. Goergen, O. Lokossou et al., “A new Bactrocera

species in Benin among mango fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) species,”

Fruits, vol. 60, no. 06, pp. 371-377, 2005.

[58] K. Mahmood, and Mishkatullah, “Population dynamics of three species of

genus Bactrocera (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in BARI, Chakwal

(Punjab),” Pakistan Journal of Zoology, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 123-126,

2007.

[59] R. Syed, M. Ghani, and M. Murtaza, “Studies on the Trypetids and their

natural enemies in West Pakistan. III. Dacus (Strumeta) zonatus

(Saunders),” Technical Bulletin, Commonwealth Institute of Biological

Control, no. 13, pp. 1-16, 1970.

[60] F. Panhwar, "Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata) attack on fruits

and its control in Sindh, Pakistan. Publisher," Digital Verlag GmbH,

Germany, www. chemlin. de, 2005.

[61] D. Sarker, M. Rahman, and J. Barman, “Efficacy of different bagging

materials for the control of mango fruit fly,” Bangladesh Journal of


[62] K. Afreh-Nuamah, “Pests of citrus species-Rutaceae,” Major Pests of

Food and Selected Fruit and Industrial Crops in West Africa (edited by

D. Obeng-Ofori). City Printers Ltd, Accra, Ghana, pp. 119-126, 2007.

[63] M. Bateman, “The ecology of fruit flies,” Annual review of entomology,

vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 493-518, 1972.

[64] M. Kannan, and N. V. Rao, “Ecological studies on mango fruit fly,

Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel,” Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, vol.

14, no. 2, pp. 340-342, 2006.

[65] M. S. QURESHI, B. THISTLETON, S. S. SYEDA et al., “Managing mango

leafhoppers and other associated species affected through systemic

insecticides in mango orchards at Darwin, Australia,” INSTRUCTIONS

TO CONTRIBUTORS/AUTHORS, pp. 81, 2011.

166

[66] I. Doreyappa Gowda, and A. Huddar, “Studies on ripening changes in

mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruits,” Journal of Food Science and

Technology, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 135-137, 2001.

[67] L. F. Solter, J. V. Maddox, and M. L. McManus, “Host Specificity of

Microsporidia (Protista: Microspora) from European Populations

ofLymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) to Indigenous North

American Lepidoptera,” Journal of invertebrate pathology, vol. 69, no. 2,

pp. 135-150, 1997.

[68] A. E. Hajek, L. Butler, S. R. Walsh et al., “Host range of the gypsy moth

(Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) pathogen Entomophaga maimaiga

(Zygomycetes: Entomophthorales) in the field versus laboratory,”


[69] K. Chauhcin, and G. Cahoon, “Mineral status of mango cultivars in

Rajasthan,” Haryana J. Hort. Sci, vol. 16, no. 1-2, pp. 20-24, 1987.

[70] M. Aluja, T. C. Leskey, and C. Vincent, Biorational tree-fruit pest

management: CABI, 2009.

[71] I. H. Kaiser, and J. N. Cummings, “pH, carbon dioxide, oxygen,

hemoglobin and plasma electrolytes in blood of pregnant goats and their

fetuses,” American Journal of Physiology--Legacy Content, vol. 195, no.

2, pp. 481-486, 1958.

[72] N. Gammon, G. Volk, E. McCubbin et al., “Soil factors affecting

molybdenum uptake by cauliflower,” Soil Science Society of America

Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 302-305, 1954.

[73] C. Pongnarin, “Biological control of oriental fruit files (Bactrocera

dorsalis (Hendel)) by the extracts of neem, sugar apple and mnitweed,”

2006.

[74] I. White, and M. Elson–Harris, “Fruit flies of Economic significance.

Their identification and bionomics. CAB,” International , UK, 1994.

[75] R. A. Drew, and D. L. Hancock, “The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of

fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia,” Bulletin of

entomological research supplement series, vol. 2, pp. 1-68, 1994.

[76] A. Zimek, and K. Weber, “In contrast to the nematode and fruit fly all 9

intron positions of the sea anemone lamin gene are conserved in human

lamin genes,” European journal of cell biology, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 305-

309, 2008.

167

[77] L. Steiner, and L. Christenson, "Potential usefulness of the sterile fly

release method in fruit fly eradication programs." pp. 17-18.

[78] M. Bateman, "Dispersal and species interaction as factors in the

establishment and success of tropical fruit flies in new areas." pp. 106-

112.

[79] K. Al-Zaghal, and T. Mustafa, “Flight activity of the olive fruit fly (Dacus

oleae Gmelin) in Jordan [comparison between two trapping techniques:

clarifying the pest problems and its control],” 1986.

[80] H. Albrecht, A. Andam, U. Binder et al., “Observation of B0-B0 mixing,”

Physics Letters B, vol. 192, no. 1-2, pp. 245-252, 1987.

[81] L. Steiner, W. Mitchell, and A. Baumhover, “Progress of fruit-fly control

by irradiation sterilization in Hawaii and the Marianas Islands,” The

International Journal of Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 13, no. 7-8,

pp. 427-434, 1962.

[82] O. Iwahashi, “Movement of the Oriental fruit fly adults among islets of

the Ogasawara Islands,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 1, no. 2, pp.

176-179, 1972.

[83] A. Yao, Y. Hsu, and W. Lee, “Moving abilities of sterile Oriental Fruit

Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae),” Natl Sci Counc Monthly (Taiwan), vol. 5, pp.

668-673, 1977.

[84] H. A. Bess, R. Van Den Bosch, and F. H. Haramoto, “Fruit fly parasites

and their activities in Hawaii,” 1961.

[85] M. Aluja, J. Arredondo, F. Díaz-Fleischer et al., “Susceptibility of 15

mango (Sapindales: Anacardiaceae) cultivars to the attack by Anastrepha

ludens and Anastrepha obliqua (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the role of

underdeveloped fruit as pest reservoirs: Management implications,”

Journal of economic entomology, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 375-388, 2014.

[86] H. Eckey-Kaltenbach, D. Ernst, W. Heller et al., “Biochemical plant

responses to ozone (IV. Cross-induction of defensive pathways in parsley

(Petroselinum crispum L.) plants),” Plant Physiology, vol. 104, no. 1, pp.

67-74, 1994.

[87] S. J. Goncalves-Alvim, R. G. Collevatti, and G. W. Fernandes, “Effects of

genetic variability and habitat of Qualea parviflora (Vochysiaceae) on

herbivory by free-feeding and gall-forming insects,” Annals of botany,

vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 259-268, 2004.

168

[88] O. d. Ponti, “Resistance in Cucumis sativus L. to Tetranychus urticae

Koch. 4. The genuineness of the resistance,” Euphytica, vol. 27, no. 2, pp.

435-439, 1978.

[89] P. Mutikainen, M. Walls, J. Ovaska et al., “Herbivore resistance in

Betula pendula: effect of fertilization, defoliation, and plant genotype,”

Ecology, vol. 81, no. 1, pp. 49-65, 2000.

[90] H. Sadrnia, A. Rajabipour, A. Jafary et al., “Classification and analysis

of fruit shapes in long type watermelon using image processing,” Int. J.

Agric. Biol, vol. 1, pp. 68-70, 2007.

[91] D. W. Tallamy, and M. J. Raupp, Phytochemical induction by herbivores:

Wiley New York, 1991.

[92] R. Karban, and I. Baldwin, “Induced Responses to Herbivory University

of Chicago Press Chicago,” IL Google Scholar, 1997.

[93] P. Feeny, “Ecological opportunism and chemical constraints on the host

associations of swallowtail butterflies,” Swallowtail butterflies: their

ecology and evolutionary biology. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville, pp.

9-15, 1995.

[94] E. Städler, “Behavioral responses of insects to plant secondary

compounds,” Herbivores: Their Interactions with Secondary Plant

Metabolites: Ecological and Evolutionary Processes, vol. 2, pp. 45-88,

1992.

[95] L. P. Pedigo, and M. R. Zeiss, Analyses in insect ecology and

management, 1996.

[96] A. Ghani, and A. Wahid, “Varietal differences for cadmium-induced

seedling mortality and foliar-toxicity symptoms in mungbean (Vigna

radiata),” International Journal of Agriculture and Biology (Pakistan),

2007.

[97] S. Mohan, A. Sirohi, and H. Gaur, “Successful management of mango

mealy bug, Drosicha mangiferae by Photorhabdus luminescens, a

symbiotic bacterium from entomopathogenic nematode Heterorhabditis

indica,” Int. J. Nematol, vol. 14, pp. 195-198, 2004.

[98] K. Karar, A. Gupta, A. Kumar et al., “Characterization and identification

of the sources of chromium, zinc, lead, cadmium, nickel, manganese and

iron in PM10 particulates at the two sites of Kolkata, India,”

169

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, vol. 120, no. 1-3, pp. 347-

360, 2006.

[99] R. Dean, “Bionomics of the apple maggot in eastern New York,” 1973.

[100] F. M. Eskafi, “Infestation of citrus by Anastrepha spp. and Ceratitis

capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in high coastal plains of Guatemala,”


[101] O. E. Liburd, S. R. Alm, and R. A. Casagrande, “Susceptibility of

highbush blueberry cultivars to larval infestation by Rhagoletis mendax

(Diptera: Tephritidae),” Environmental Entomology, vol. 27, no. 4, pp.

817-821, 1998.

[102] J. Rull, and R. J. Prokopy, “Host-finding and ovipositional-boring

responses of apple maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae) to different apple

genotypes,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1695-1702,

2004.

[103] M. Aluja, and R. L. Mangan, “Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) host status

determination: critical conceptual, methodological, and regulatory

considerations,” Annu. Rev. Entomol., vol. 53, pp. 473-502, 2008.

[104] L. Guillén, M. Aluja, J. Rull et al., “Influence of walnut cultivar on

infestation by Rhagoletis completa: behavioural and management

implications,” Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, vol. 140, no. 3,

pp. 207-217, 2011.

[105] M. K. Hennessey, R. J. Knight, and R. J. Schnell , “Antibiosis to

Caribbean fruit fly in avocado germplasm,” HortScience, vol. 30, no. 5,

pp. 1061-1062, 1995.

[106] A. Birke, M. Aluja, P. Greany et al., “Long aculeus and behavior of

Anastrepha ludens render gibberellic acid ineffective as an agent to

reduce ‘Ruby Red’grapefruit susceptibility to the attack of this pestiferous

fruit fly in commercial groves,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 99,

no. 4, pp. 1184-1193, 2006.

[107] R. I. Vargas, D. Miyashita, and T. Nishida, “Life history and

demographic parameters of three laboratory-reared tephritids (Diptera:

Tephritidae),” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 77,

no. 6, pp. 651-656, 1984.

170



(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia,” 2001.

[109] H. Willard, "Some Observations in Hawaii on the Ecology of the

Mediterranean Fruit FlyCeratitis capitata Wiedemann and its Parasites."

pp. 505-515.

[110] G. R. Mishra, M. Suresh, K. Kumaran et al., “Human protein reference

database—2006 update,” Nucleic acids research, vol. 34, no. suppl_1,

pp. D411-D414, 2006.

[111] W. Rattanapun, W. Amornsak, and A. R. Clarke, “Bactrocera dorsalis

preference for and performance on two mango varieties at three stages of

ripeness,” Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, vol. 131, no. 3, pp.

243-253, 2009.

[112] D. Krainacker, J. Carey, and R. Vargas, “Effect of larval host on life

history traits of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata,”

Oecologia, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 583-590, 1987.

[113] N. Bruzzone, A. Economopoulos, and H. S. Wang, “Mass rearing

Ceratitis capitata: reuse of the finisher larval diet,” Entomologia


[114] C. T. Hing, “Effects of host fruit and larval density on development and

survival of Bactocera sp.(Malaysian B).(Diptera: Tephritidae),”

Pertanika (Malaysia), 1991.

[115] M. Khan, R. Shahjahan, and M. Wadud, “Effect of larval dietary protein

sources on different aspects of oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae),” Bangladesh Journal of Entomology, vol.

9, pp. 39-44, 1999.

[116] R. Kaspi, S. Mossinson, T. Drezner et al., “Effects of larval diet on

development rates and reproductive maturation of male and female

Mediterranean fruit flies,” Physiological Entomology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp.

29-38, 2002.

[117] A. Saleem, and K. Akhtar, "Mango diseases and their control."

[118] E. O. Wilson, “The current state of biological diversity,” Biodiversity,

vol. 521, no. 1, pp. 3-18, 1988.

[119] A. DiTommaso, and J. E. Losey, “Oviposition preference and larval

performance of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) on two invasive

171

swallow‐wort species,” Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, vol.

108, no. 3, pp. 205-209, 2003.

[120] S. Van Nouhuys, M. C. Singer, and M. Nieminen, “Spatial and temporal

patterns of caterpillar performance and the suitability of two host plant

species,” Ecological Entomology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 193-202, 2003.

[121] G. P. Fitt, “The Ecology of Northern Australian Dacinae (Diptera:

Tephritidae) I. Host Phenology and Utilization of Opilia amentacea

Roxb.(Opiliaceae) by Dacus (Bactrocera) opiliae Drew & Hardy, with

notes on some other species,” Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 29, no.

5, pp. 691-705, 1981.

[122] T. M. Fontellas-Brandalha, and F. S. Zucoloto, “Selection of oviposition

sites by wild Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart)(Diptera: Tephritidae) based

on the nutritional composition,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 33, no. 5,

pp. 557-562, 2004.

[123] I. S. Joachim-Bravo, O. A. Fernandes, S. A. BORTOLI et al., “Oviposition

behavior of Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae):

association between oviposition preference and larval performance in

individual females,” Neotropical Entomology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 559 -564,

2001.

[124] R. J. Prokopy, and E. D. Owens, “Visual detection of plants by

herbivorous insects,” Annual review of entomology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp.

337-364, 1983.

[125] E. B. Jang, and D. M. Light, “Behavioral responses of female oriental

fruit flies to the odor of papayas at three ripeness stages in a laboratory

flight tunnel (Diptera: Tephritidae),” Journal of Insect Behavior, vol. 4,

no. 6, pp. 751-762, 1991.

[126] R. J. Prokopy, and R. I. Vargas, “Attraction ofCeratitis capitata (Diptera:

Tephritidae) flies to odor of coffee fruit,” Journal of chemical ecology,

vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 807-820, 1996.

[127] M. L. Cornelius, J. J. Duan, and R. H. Messing, “Visual stimuli and the

response of female oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to fruit -

mimicking traps,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 92, no. 1, pp.

121-129, 1999.

[128] R. A. Drew, R. J. Prokopy, and M. C. Romig, “Attraction of fruit flies of

the genus Bactrocera to colored mimics of host fruit,” Entomologia


172

[129] T. Brévault, and S. Quilici, “Influence of habitat pattern on orientation

during host fruit location in the tomato fruit fly, Neoceratitis

cyanescens,” Bulletin of entomological research, vol. 97, no. 06, pp. 637 -

642, 2007.

[130] R. Bidwell, "Plant physiology (2nd edn)," Macmillan Publishing Co.,

Inc.: New York, 1979.

[131] A. P. Medlicott, and A. K. Thompson, “Analysis of sugars and organic

acids in ripening mango fruits (Mangifera indica L. var Keitt) by high

performance liquid chromatography,” Journal of the Science of Food and

Agriculture, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 561-566, 1985.

[132] H. Yashoda, T. Prabha, and R. Tharanathan, “Mango ripening–Role of

carbohydrases in tissue softening,” Food chemistry, vol. 102, no. 3, pp.

691-698, 2007.

[133] F. J. Messina, and V. P. Jones, “Relationship between fruit phenology

and infestation by the apple maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Utah,”

Annals of the Entomological Society of America, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 742-

752, 1990.

[134] F. J. Messina, D. G. Alston, and V. P. Jones, “Oviposition by the western

cherry fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) in relation to host development,”

Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, pp. 197-208, 1991.

[135] F. Díaz‐Fleischer, and M. Aluja, “Clutch size in frugivorous insects as a

function of host firmness: the case of the tephritid fly Anastrepha ludens,”

Ecological Entomology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 268-277, 2003.

[136] S. Balagawi, S. Vijaysegaran, R. A. Drew et al., “Influence of fruit traits

on oviposition preference and offspring performance of Bactrocera tryoni

(Froggatt)(Diptera: Tephritidae) on three tomato (Lycopersicon

lycopersicum) cultivars,” Austral Entomology, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 97-103,

2005.

[137] G. Pritchard, “The ecology of a natural population of Queensland fruit

fly, Dacus tryoni II. The distribution of eggs and its relation to

behaviour,” Australian Journal of Zoology, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 293-311,

1969.

[138] D. R. Papaj, and H. Alonso-Pimentel, “Why walnut flies superparasitize:

time savings as a possible explanation,” Oecologia, vol. 109, no. 1, pp.

166-174, 1996.

173

[139] D. R. Papaj, B. I. Katsoyannos, and J. Hendrichs, “Use of fruit wounds in

oviposition by Mediterranean fruit flies,” Entomologia experimentalis et

applicata, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 203-209, 1989.

[140] T. E. Shelly, “Defense of oviposition sites by female oriental fruit flies

(Diptera: Tephritidae),” Florida Entomologist, pp. 339-346, 1999.

[141] S. R. Jones, and K. C. Kim, “Aculeus wear and oviposition in four species

of Tephritidae (Diptera),” Annals of the Entomological Society of

America, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 104-107, 1994.

[142] D. Joel, "SECRETORY DUCTS OF MANGO FRUITS-DEFENSE SYSTEM

EFFECTIVE AGAINST MEDITERRANEAN FRUIT-FLY." pp. 44-45.

[143] C. M. Herrera, “Defense of ripe fruit from pests: its significance in

relation to plant-disperser interactions,” The American Naturalist, vol.

120, no. 2, pp. 218-241, 1982.

[144] N. Anjum, M. Tariq, and L. Asia, “Effect of various coating materials on

keeping quality of mangoes (Mangifera indica) stored at low

temperature,” Am. J. Food Technol, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 52-58, 2006.

[145] S. Jha, S. Chopra, and A. Kingsly, “Modeling of color values for

nondestructive evaluation of maturity of mango,” Journal of Food

engineering, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 22-26, 2007.

[146] M. Reid, “Maturation and Maturity Indices. University of California,”

Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication, vol. 3311, 2002.

[147] D. Slaughter, “Nondestructive maturity assessment methods for mango: A

Review of Literature and Identification of Future Research Needs,”

National Mango Board, Orlando, FL, USA, 2009.

[148] M. I. Gil, F. A. Tomás-Barberán, B. Hess-Pierce et al., “Antioxidant

capacities, phenolic compounds, carotenoids, and vitamin C contents of

nectarine, peach, and plum cultivars from California,” Journal of

Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 50, no. 17, pp. 4976-4982, 2002.

[149] R. El-Buluk, E. Babiker, and A. El Tinay, “Biochemical and physical

changes in fruits of four guava cultivars during growth and

development,” Food chemistry, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 279-282, 1995.

[150] M. Lebrun, A. Plotto, K. Goodner et al., “Discrimination of mango fru it

maturity by volatiles using the electronic nose and gas chromatography,”

Postharvest Biology and Technology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 122-131, 2008.

174

[151] Y. Malevski, L. BRITO, M. Peleg et al., “External color as maturity index

of mango,” Journal of Food Science, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1316-1318, 1977.

[152] S. Jha, A. Kingsly, and S. Chopra, “Physical and mechanical properties

of mango during growth and storage for determination of maturity,”

Journal of Food engineering, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 73-76, 2006.

[153] E. Dick, A. N’DaAdopo, B. Camara et al., “Influence of maturity stage of

mango at harvest on its ripening quality,” Fruits, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 13 -

18, 2009.

[154] O. K. Ahmed, “Evaluation of objective maturity indices for muskmelon

(Cucumis melo) cv.‘Galia’,” Journal of King Abdulaziz University, vol. 2,

pp. 317-326, 2009.

[155] D. Ray, and S. Mukherjee, “Nutrient status in leaf and soil of some

cultivars of mango in relation to yield,” Indian Journal of Horticulture,

vol. 44, no. 1and2, pp. 1-8, 1987.

[156] H. Haag, M. Souza, Q. Carmello et al., “Removal of macro-and micro-

nutrients by fruits of four mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars,” Anais

da Escola Superior de Agriculture'Luiz de Queiroz', vol. 47, no. 2, pp.

459-477, 1990.

[157] P. Mamiro, L. Fweja, B. Chove et al., “Physical and chemical

characteristics of off vine ripened mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit

(Dodo),” African Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 6, no. 21, 2007.

[158] M. Gössinger, F. Mayer, N. Radocha et al., “Consumer's color

acceptance of strawberry nectars from puree,” Journal of Sensory

Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 78-92, 2009.

[159] R. Kumar, Insect pest control, with special reference to African

agriculture: Edward Arnold (Publishers), 1984.

[160] N. Hala, S. Quilici, A. Gnago et al., "Status of fruit flies (Diptera:

Tephritidae) in Côte d’Ivoire and implications for mango exports." pp.

10-15.

[161] M. Ndiaye, E. O. Dieng, and G. Delhove, “Population dynamics and on -

farm fruit fly integrated pest management in mango orchards in the

natural area of Niayes in Senegal,” Pest Management in Horticultural

Ecosystems, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2008.

175

[162] H. Weems, J. Heppner, J. Nation et al., “Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera

dorsalis (Hendel)(Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae),” Featured Creatures:

Entomology and Nematology. Entomology circulars, vol. 21, 2012.

[163] G. Goergen, J.-F. Vayssières, D. Gnanvossou et al., “Bactrocera

invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae), a new invasive fruit fly pest for the

Afrotropical region: host plant range and distribution in West and

Central Africa,” Environmental Entomology, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 844-854,

2011.

[164] M. Mau, and J. L. Matin, "Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Crop knowledge

master," 2007.

[165] E. Back, and C. Pemberton, “Susceptibility of citrus fruits to the attack of

the Mediterranean fruit fly,” J. agric. Res, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 311-330,

1915.

[166] S. Lux, S. Ekesi, S. Dimbi et al., “Mango-Infesting Fruit Flies in Africa:

Perspectives and Limitations of Biological,” Biological control in IPM

systems in Africa, pp. 277, 2003.

[167] R. Drew, and G. Hooper, “Population studies of fruit flies (Diptera:

Tephritidae) in south-east Queensland,” Oecologia, vol. 56, no. 2-3, pp.

153-159, 1983.



(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Thailand and Peninsular Malaysia,” Raffles

Bulletin of Zoology, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 207-220, 2001.

[169] I. M. Newell, and F. H. Haramoto, “Biotic factors influencing

populations of Dacus dorsalis in Hawaii,” 1968.

[170] P. D. Greany, “Host plant resistance to tephritids: an under-exploited

control strategy,” fruit flies, their biology, natural enemies and control,

Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 353-362, 1989.

[171] L. F. Steiner, “Field evaluation of oriental fruit fly insecticides in

Hawaii,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 16-24,

1957.

[172] A. H. Putnam, “Plant Industry Publications.”

[173] R. I. Vargas, S. Mitchell, B. Fujita et al., “Rearing techniques for Dacus

latifrons (Hendel)(Diptera: Tephritidae),” 1990.

176

[174] V. Kapoor, “Taxonomy and biology of economically important fruit flies

of India,” Israel Journal of Entomology, vol. 35, no. 36, pp. 459 -475,

2005.

[175] R. I. Vargas, and J. R. Carey, “Comparative survival and demographic

statistics for wild oriental fruit fly, Mediterranean fruit fly, and melon fly

(Diptera: Tephritidae) on papaya,” Journal of economic entomology, vol.

83, no. 4, pp. 1344-1349, 1990.

[176] S. Ekesi, and S. A. Mohamed, Mass rearing and quality control

parameters for tephritid fruit flies of economic importance in Africa:

INTECH Open Access Publisher, 2011.

[177] M. Dhillon, R. Singh, J. Naresh et al., “The melon fruit fly, Bactrocera

cucurbitae: A review of its biology and management,” Journal of Insect

Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 40, 2005.

[178] M. Faheem, S. Saeed, A. Sajjad et al., “In Search of the Best Hot Water

Treatments for Sindhri and Chaunsa Variety of Mango,” Pakistan

Journal of Zoology, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 101-108, 2012.

[179] A. Manrakhan, and N. Price, “Seasonal profiles in production, fruit fly

populations and fruit fly damage on mangoes in Mauritius,” FOOD AND

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, pp. 107, 2001.

[180] T. Yamada, S. Nakagawa, and H. Kamasaki, “Identification of three

species of reared Hawaiian fruit fly pupae,” 1963.

[181] G. Steck, “Mango Fruit Fly, Ceratitis cosyra (Walker)(Insecta: Diptera:

Tephritidae),” Entomology and Nematology Department, UF/IFAS

Extension, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA, 2015.

[182] V. Kalia, “Bionomics of fruit fly Dacus dorsalis on some cultivars of

mango and guava,” Bulletin of Entomology in New Delhi, vol. 33, no. 1 -

2, pp. 79-87, 1992.

[183] K. Abdullah, A. Khan, and M. Akram, “Non-traditional method of fruit fly

control in guava orchards in Dera Ismail Khan,” Pakistan Journal of


[184] K. Nagaraj, S. Jaganath, B. Shafeeq et al., “Incidence of Fruit Fly

(bactrocera spp.) in different Mango Orchards and Varieties,” Trends in

Biosciences, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 1072-1074, 2014.

177

[185] S. T. Seo, G. J. Farias, and E. J. Harris, “Oriental fruit fly: ripening of

fruit and its effect on index of infestation of Hawaiian papayas,” Journal

of economic entomology, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 173-178, 1982.

[186] D. Joel, “The duct systems of the base and stalk of the mango fruit,”

Botanical Gazette, vol. 142, no. 3, pp. 329-333, 1981.

[187] A. Verghese, C. Soumya, S. Shivashankar et al., “Phenolics as chemical

barriers to female fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in mango,” Curr

Sci, vol. 103, pp. 563-566, 2012.

[188] M. Shahnawaz, S. A. Sheikh, and S. Nizamani, “Determination of nutritive

values of Jamun fruit (Eugenia jambolana) products,” Pakistan Journal

of Nutrition, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1275-1280, 2009.

[189] F. Ambele, M. Billah, K. Afreh-Nuamah et al., “Susceptibility of four

mango varieties to the Africa invader fly, Bactrocera invadens Drew,

Tsuruta and White (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Ghana,” 2011.

[190] A. A. Nour, K. S. Khalid, and G. A. Osman, “Suitability of some Sudanese

mango varieties for jam making,” Am. J. Ind. Res, vol. 2, pp. 17-23, 2011.

[191] T. Malundo, R. Shewfelt, G. Ware et al., “Sugars and acids influence

flavor properties of mango (Mangifera indica),” Journal of the American

Society for Horticultural Science, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 115-121, 2001.

[192] S. Naz, M. A. Anjum, S. Chohan et al., “Physico-chemical and sensory

profiling of promising mango cultivars grown in peri-urban areas of

Multan, Pakistan,” Pakistan Journal of Botany, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 191-

198, 2014.

[193] S. Nagothu, A. Nemes, J. C. Biswas et al., “Climate change impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation: Sustaining rice production in Bangladesh,”

Bioforsk Rapport, 2014.

[194] E. Ahmed, “Studies on mango fruit fly Ceratitis cosyra in Central

Sudan,” M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture Science University of

Gezira, 2001.

[195] S. Jha, K. Narsaiah, A. Sharma et al., “Quality parameters of mango and

potential of non-destructive techniques for their measurement—a

review,” Journal of food science and technology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 1-14,

2010.

178

[196] M. Mannan, S. Khan, M. Islam et al., “A study on the physico-chemical

characteristics of some mango varieties in Khuhia region,” Pak. J. Biol.

Sci, vol. 6, no. 24, pp. 2034-2039, 2003.

[197] M. Hamdard, M. Rafique, and U. Farooq, “Physico-chemical

characteristics of various mango, Mangifera indica L. varieties,” Journal

of Agricultural Research (Pakistan), 2004.

[198] S. Ali, C. Haq, and S. Hussain, “Physico-chemical studies of some

varieties of mango grown at Shujabad,” Pakistan Journal of Agricultural


[199] K. A. Gomez, and A. A. Gomez, Statistical procedures for agricultural

research: John Wiley & Sons, 1984.

[200] M. Shah, N. Memon, A. Manan et al., “Effect Of Different Temperatures

On The Development Of Spotted Bollworm, Earias Vittella

(Fab.)(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) In The Laboratory,” Sindh University

Research Journal-SURJ (Science Series), vol. 44, no. 3, 2012.

[201] S. Ekesi, M. K. Billah, P. W. Nderitu et al., “Evidence for competitive

displacement of Ceratitis cosyra by the invasive fruit fly Bactrocera

invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) on mango and mechanisms contributing

to the displacement,” Journal of economic entomology, vol. 102, no. 3,

pp. 981-991, 2009.

[202] A. A. Chemists, “Official methods of analysis,” Vol. I. 15th ed. AOAC,

Arlington, VA, 1990.

[203] A. G. Woodman, Food analysis: McGraw-Hill, 1941.

[204] M. I. Manzur, and S. P. Courtney, “Influence of insect damage in fruits of

hawthorn on bird foraging and seed dispersal,” Oikos, pp. 265-270,

1984.

[205] S. Mir, S. Dar, G. Mir et al., “Biology of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera:

Tephritidae) on cucumber,” Florida Entomologist, vol. 97, no . 2, pp. 753-

758, 2014.

[206] P. Renjhen, “On the morphology of the immature stages of Dacus

(Strumeta) cucurbitae Coq.(the melon fruit fly) with notes on its biology,”

Indian Journal of Entomology, vol. 11, pp. 83-100, 1949.

[207] O. Singh, and T. Teotia, “A simple method of mass culturing melon fruit-

fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillet,” Indian Journal of Entomology, vol. 32,

no. 1, pp. 28-31, 1970.

179

[208] K. Doharey, “Bionomics of fruit flies (Dacus spp.) on some fruits,”

Indian Journal of Entomology, 1983.

[209] D. Shivarkar, and R. Dumbre, “Bionomics and chemical control of melon

fly,” J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 298-300, 1985.

[210] E. Narayanan, and H. Batra, Fruit flies and their control: Indian Council

of Agricultural Research, 1960.

[211] M. Agarwal, D. Sharma, and O. Rahman, “Melon fruit fly and its

control,” Indian Horticulture, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 10-11, 1987.

[212] A. Langar, H. Sahito, and M. Talpur, “Biology and population of melon

fruit fly on musk melon and Indian squash Intl,” J. Farming Allied Sci,

vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 42-47, 2013.

[213] V. Koul, and K. Bhagat, “Biology of melon fruit fly, Bactrocera (Dacus)

cucurbitae Coquillett (Diptera: Tephritidae) on bottle gourd,” Pest

Management and Economic Zoology, vol. 2, pp. 123-125, 1994.

[214] N. VISHVA, Biology, Behaviour and Management of Melon Fly

Bactrocera (Zendodacus) Vucurbitae (Coquillett (Dipter: Teteraphidae)

on Gherkins: University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, 2005.

[215] V. Shivayya, C. Ashok Kumar, and A. Chakravarthy, “Biology of melon

fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae on different food sources,” Indian Journal of

Plant Protection, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 25-28, 2007.

[216] A. Meats, “The bioclimatic potential of the Queensland fruit fly, Dacus

tryoni,” Australia. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia,

vol. 11, no. 15, pp. 1-61, 1981.

[217] S. Saeki, M. Katayama, and M. Okumura, “Effect of temperatures upon

the development of the oriental fruit fly and its possible distribution in the

mainland of Japan,” Chosa kenkyu hokoku.= Research bulletin of the

Plant Protection Service, Japan-Shokubutsu Boeki-sho, Yokohama, 1980.

[218] N. Shehata, M. Younes, and Y. Mahmoud, “Biological studies on the

peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) in Egypt,” J. Appl. Sci. Res,

vol. 4, no. 9, pp. 1103-1106, 2008.

[219] M. Waseem, A. Naganagoud, D. Sagar et al., “Biology of melon fly,

Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) on cucumber,” BIOINFOLET-A

Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 232-239, 2012.

[220] R. Hollingsworth, M. Vagalo, and F. Tsatsia, "Biology of melon fly, with

special reference to Solomon Islands." pp. 140-144.

180

[221] J. RAJAGANAPATHI, and K. KATHIRESAN, “A simple and cost-effective

mass rearing technique for the tephritid fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis

(Hendel),” Current science, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 266, 2002.

[222] H. Shimada, A. Tanaka, and H. Kamiwada, "Oviposition behaviour and

development of the oriental fruit fly, Dacus dorsalis Hendel on Prunus

salicina Lindl [plums]."

[223] R. CRNJAR, “Behavior and sensory physiology of Rhagoletis pomonella

in relation to oviposition stimulants and deterrents in fruit,” Fruit flies of

economic importance 84, vol. 9647, pp. 183, 1986.

[224] W. P. da Silva, D. S. do Amaral, M. E. M. Duarte et al., “Description of

the osmotic dehydration and convective drying of coconut (Cocos

nucifera L.) pieces: a three-dimensional approach,” Journal of Food

Engineering, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 121-131, 2013.

[225] R. Ara, M. Motalab, M. Uddin et al., “Nutritional evaluation of different

mango varieties available in Bangladesh,” International Food Research

Journal, vol. 21, no. 6, 2014.

[226] C. E. Ogaugwu, M. F. Schetelig, and E. A. Wimmer, “Transgenic sexing

system for Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on female-

specific embryonic lethality,” Insect biochemistry and molecular biology,

vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2013.

[227] M. Billah, K. Afreh-Nuamah, D. Obeng-Ofori et al., “Review of the pest

status, economic impact and management of fruit-infesting flies (Diptera:

Tephritidae) in Africa,” African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol.

10, no. 12, pp. 1488-1498, 2015.

[228] M. K. Hennessey, and R. Schnell, “Resistance of immature mango fruits

to Caribbean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae),” Florida Entomologist, vol.

84, no. 2, pp. 318, 2001.

[229] S. Finch, and R. Collier, “Host‐plant selection by insects–a theory based

on ‘appropriate/inappropriate landings’ by pest insects of cruciferous

plants,” Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 91 -

102, 2000.

[230] S. Gripenberg, P. J. Mayhew, M. Parnell et al., “A meta‐analysis of

preference–performance relationships in phytophagous insects,” Ecology

letters, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 383-393, 2010.

Date post:	20-Feb-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Ph.D. Thesis - Pakistan Research Repository

Documents