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
University of Sindh, Jamshoro Pakistan
CO-SUPERVISOR
________________________
Dr. Abdul Rasool Abbasi
Professor at Department of Fresh water
University of Sindh, Jamshoro Pakistan
CO-SUPERVISOR
________________________
Dr. Mansoor Ali Shah
Assistant Professor at Department of zoology
University of Sindh, Jamshoro Pakistan
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
TABLE 4-19 SURVIVAL % OF DIFFERENT LIFE STAGES OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON
SINDHRI VARIETY .................................................................................................... 89
TABLE 4-20 SURVIVAL % OF DIFFERENT LIFE STAGES OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON
BEGANPALI VARIETY .............................................................................................. 90
TABLE 4-21 SURVIVAL % OF DIFFERENT LIFE STAGES OF BACTROCERA DORSALIS ON
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
FIGURE 4-43: SHOWS THE POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA SPECIES PER
TRAP IN MIRPUR KHAS DURING 2015 ................................................... 53
FIGURE 4-44: SHOWS THE POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA SPECIES PER
TRAP DURING 2014 IN OF NAUSHAHRO FEROZE ................................ 54
FIGURE 4-45: SHOWS THE POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES BACTROCERA SPECIES PER
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
NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2014 69
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
NAUSHAHRO FEROZE DURING JUN-SEPT 2015 72
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
CONSUMPTION BY BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE DURING JUN-
SEPT 2014-2016 ....................................................................................... 114
FIGURE 4-78: SHOWING THE NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN MOISTURE AND
CONSUMPTION BY BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE DURING JUN-
SEPT 2014-2016 ....................................................................................... 114
FIGURE 4-79: SHOWING THE NEGATIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN ASH AND
CONSUMPTION BY BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE DURING JUN-
SEPT 2014-2016 ....................................................................................... 115
FIGURE 4-80: SHOWING THE POSITIVE CO-RELATION BETWEEN PH AND
CONSUMPTION BY BACTROCERA DORSALIS LARVAE DURING JUN-
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
___________________________________________________________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) .
___________________________________________________________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
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)
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
Parameter Pearson Correlation “r” (p =value)
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
population of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas during Jun-Sept 2015
66
Figure 4-53 Showing the weak positively co-relation between average humidity and
population of Bactrocera species in Mirpur khas during Jun-Sept 2015
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.
Parameter Pearson Correlation “r” (p =value)
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.
Parameter Pearson Correlation “r” (p =value)
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
population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2015
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
population of Bactrocera species in Naushahro feroze during Jun-Sept 2015
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).
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)
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
Research, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 79-84, 2005.
[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,”
Environmental Entomology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 52-58, 1988.
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
experimentalis et applicata, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 39-45, 2003.
[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.
[168] 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,” 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
Agricultural Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 195-196, 2002.
[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
Research, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 350-356, 1992.
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
Research, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 101-108, 2006.
[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
Research, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 79-84, 2005.
[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
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.
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,”
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 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,”
Environmental Entomology, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 52-58, 1988.
[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
[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.
[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
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
experimentalis et applicata, vol. 107, no. 1, pp. 39-45, 2003.
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.
[168] 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,” 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
Agricultural Research, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 195-196, 2002.
[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
Research, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 350-356, 1992.
[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.