Download - Fruit fly Ahsan

Integrated Pest Management of Fruit fly (Tephritidae: Diptera) in Punjab, Pakistan.

By

DR. MUHAMMAD AHSAN KHAN Assistant Professor (T.T.S.)

Deptt. of Agri. Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

Vision

Achieve environmentally sound and sustainable Agricultural production ensuring food security, social equity, self reliance and economic welfare of the producer.

GoalLarge scale and sustainable implementation of IPM in Pakistan. Rational pesticide use, maintaining production level and increasing farmer’s profit.

PEST CONTROLPEST CONTROL Pest:Pest:

““Any organism which competes with human for food and shelter.”Any organism which competes with human for food and shelter.” Magnitude of losses by various pests are very high. Almost 1/3 of the total Magnitude of losses by various pests are very high. Almost 1/3 of the total

harvest is destroyed from the potential harvest.harvest is destroyed from the potential harvest. Pest infestation reduces yield, lowers quality and increases cost of Pest infestation reduces yield, lowers quality and increases cost of

production, hence adequate control measures must be adopted.production, hence adequate control measures must be adopted. Insect control:Insect control:

By Insect control we mean the regulation of insect activity for the best of By Insect control we mean the regulation of insect activity for the best of humanity.humanity.

Limitations of insect control :Limitations of insect control :1.1. High biotic potential.High biotic potential.2.2. Efficient adaptability to the environment.Efficient adaptability to the environment.3.3. High cost of control.High cost of control.4.4. Resistance. Resistance. 5.5. High in number and small in size.High in number and small in size.6.6. Can live in adverse condition. etcCan live in adverse condition. etc

BUT UNFORTUNATELYBUT UNFORTUNATELY

At present Farmers largely rely on chemical insecticides to control the insects pests of various crops.

IMPACT OF PESTICIDE USEIMPACT OF PESTICIDE USE Pesticide residues enter in food chainPesticide residues enter in food chain Development of pest resistanceDevelopment of pest resistance Elimination of natural enemiesElimination of natural enemies Extinction of wild life Extinction of wild life Degradation of cropland soilDegradation of cropland soil Loss of PollinatorsLoss of Pollinators Harm to non-target organismsHarm to non-target organisms Contamination of underground and Contamination of underground and

surface watersurface water Air Pollution due to fumigants and Air Pollution due to fumigants and

other volatile pesticidesother volatile pesticides Bio-accumulation and bio-Bio-accumulation and bio-

magnification magnification Health concerns, etcHealth concerns, etc

Only in Pakistan on an average, 12,000 metric tons of active Only in Pakistan on an average, 12,000 metric tons of active ingredient of pesticides are being imported annually ingredient of pesticides are being imported annually

The chemical control is a two edged sword with The chemical control is a two edged sword with both positive and negative impacts.both positive and negative impacts.

Despite of the advantage of convenience, simplicity Despite of the advantage of convenience, simplicity and effectiveness; insecticides have led to and effectiveness; insecticides have led to unsolvable problems of insect resistance, unsolvable problems of insect resistance, resurgence, outbreak of secondary pests, adverse resurgence, outbreak of secondary pests, adverse effects on non-target organisms and other effects on non-target organisms and other externalities.externalities.

SOSOIntegrated Pest Management is now a global Integrated Pest Management is now a global

philosophy.philosophy.

RESULTANTLY:-

What is IPM ?What is IPM ?(A theme of clean environment, sustainability, resource (A theme of clean environment, sustainability, resource conservation and organic farming)conservation and organic farming)

““IPM is intelligent selection and integration of compatible IPM is intelligent selection and integration of compatible control measures which are ecologically sound, economically control measures which are ecologically sound, economically viable and socially acceptable.”viable and socially acceptable.”

IPM is an approach of pest management which considers the IPM is an approach of pest management which considers the whole agro-ecosystem.whole agro-ecosystem.

IPM is specific way of thinking, not a method of insect control. IPM is specific way of thinking, not a method of insect control.

Major Components of IPMMajor Components of IPM

Increased Production

Healthy crop

Legislative Contro

l

Cultural control

Biological Control

Physical Control

Chemical Control

Mechanical Control

Genetic control

Arthropoda

Diptera Tephritidae

Insecta

FRUIT FLY

Animalia

FACTS ABOUT THE FRUIT FLYFACTS ABOUT THE FRUIT FLY

There are more than 120,000 species of fruit flies There are more than 120,000 species of fruit flies worldwide but 70 species are economically most important.worldwide but 70 species are economically most important.

Fruit fly is recorded in India, south-east Asia and many Fruit fly is recorded in India, south-east Asia and many other countries. other countries.

There are about 250 host plants on which fruit fly feeds.There are about 250 host plants on which fruit fly feeds.

Medical doctors use a special species of fruit fly maggots Medical doctors use a special species of fruit fly maggots to help patients with flesh wounds, especially burn victims. to help patients with flesh wounds, especially burn victims. Maggots eat away the damaged flesh, which helps the wound to Maggots eat away the damaged flesh, which helps the wound to heal.heal.

LIFE CYCLE OF FRUIT FLYLIFE CYCLE OF FRUIT FLY

LIFE CYCLE OF THE FRUIT FLYLIFE CYCLE OF THE FRUIT FLY

There are four stages in the life cycle of the fruit fly:

egg, maggot, pupa, and adult.

At a typical room temperature fruit fly produces new adults in about two weeks; eight days in the egg and maggot stages (3+5 respectively), and six days in the pupal stage. The total life span of a fruit fly may be several weeks depending upon the temperature.

Twenty-four hours after the egg is laid, the legless maggots hatches . The maggot has two molting periods, during which the cuticle, mouth parts, hooks, and spiracles are shed. The maggot is called an instar during the periods of growth before and after molting. Thus, the fruit fly has three instars. The puparium develops from the third instar which becomes hard in texture and darker in color.

The puparium is where metamorphosis takes place, just before the adult fly emerges from the puparium, the pupa becomes dark. Approximately 24 hours before the adult fruit fly emerges, one can see the folded wings and the pigment of the eyes, if one looks closely through the puparium.

On completion of metamorphosis, the adult forces its way through the operculum (anterior end of the puparium). Initially the fruit fly appears light in color with a long abdomen and unexpanded wings. In just a few hours the fruit fly gets darker in color, rounder in the abdomen and extends its wings. Approximately 48 hours after emerging from the puparium, it is possible for females to start laying eggs. However, there are only 12 hours that a female can be considered virgin after emerging as an adult. After reaching this maturity, the flies are fertile for life. A female fruit fly can store sperm after a single insemination and use it for many reproductions.

The fruit fly over winters in the adult stage and is able to withstand temperatures as low as 20°F. Food, water, and shelter are more important factors for over wintering than temperature. Over wintering fruit flies feed on honeydew and require an abundant water supply.

In this picture, you can identify male and female fruit fly by looking carefully at their tail end.

You can easily see that one fruit fly is all black at the end of the abdomen which is male and the other has very narrow black bands at the base of the abdomen which is female.

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION

Among various species of pest insects attacking the fruits, fruit flies Among various species of pest insects attacking the fruits, fruit flies (Tephritidae; Diptera) have great economic importance due to their heavy (Tephritidae; Diptera) have great economic importance due to their heavy losses to fruits & vegetables in Pakistan. The incidence of fruit flies reduces losses to fruits & vegetables in Pakistan. The incidence of fruit flies reduces both yield and quality of fruits when females puncture and lay eggs in the both yield and quality of fruits when females puncture and lay eggs in the fruit under the skin. The maggots after hatching, tunnel into the fruits for fruit under the skin. The maggots after hatching, tunnel into the fruits for feeding on the pulp and render them unfit for human consumption. In certain feeding on the pulp and render them unfit for human consumption. In certain fruits, rotting starts at the puncture points. The losses caused to fruits by fruit fruits, rotting starts at the puncture points. The losses caused to fruits by fruit flies varied according to species and the host fruit plant species. In the flies varied according to species and the host fruit plant species. In the scientific literature the most serious pest species reported is the oriental fruit scientific literature the most serious pest species reported is the oriental fruit fly fly (Bactrocera dorsali.s), (Bactrocera dorsali.s), which caused 5-100 percent loss to various fruits which caused 5-100 percent loss to various fruits (Syed (Syed et of., et of., I970b). Highest loss of 80 percent in guava fruit was reported I970b). Highest loss of 80 percent in guava fruit was reported by Kali (1986). by Kali (1986).

The peach fruit fly is an other insect pest species, found most The peach fruit fly is an other insect pest species, found most abundantly in all climatic regions of Pakistan and cause 3-100 percent loss abundantly in all climatic regions of Pakistan and cause 3-100 percent loss in different fruits (Sycd in different fruits (Sycd et al., et al., 1970a). The ber fruit fly 1970a). The ber fruit fly (Carpomya vesuviana) (Carpomya vesuviana) can cause 90-100 percent damage to ber fruit.can cause 90-100 percent damage to ber fruit.

Many conventional and modem techniques of pest control Many conventional and modem techniques of pest control have been tested to avoid the losses caused by fruit flies in the have been tested to avoid the losses caused by fruit flies in the world. These pest control techniques included orchards sanitation, world. These pest control techniques included orchards sanitation, physical, chemical, biological control and sterile male technique. But physical, chemical, biological control and sterile male technique. But in Pakistan, sole reliance has been made on pesticides for the in Pakistan, sole reliance has been made on pesticides for the control of fruit flies which has created environmental contamination, control of fruit flies which has created environmental contamination, residues problem, killing of non-target organisms, development of residues problem, killing of non-target organisms, development of resistance against pesticides in insects etc. resistance against pesticides in insects etc.

However in some instances, the use of male lures and However in some instances, the use of male lures and protein baits are being used for the control of fruit flies but these protein baits are being used for the control of fruit flies but these control measures are not practiced in integrated manners. Therefore control measures are not practiced in integrated manners. Therefore there is a dire need to develop a long lasting pest control strategy. there is a dire need to develop a long lasting pest control strategy. Thus for promoting a combination of these control strategies, the Thus for promoting a combination of these control strategies, the present studies were designed with an overall objective to develop present studies were designed with an overall objective to develop low cost technology for fruit flies control and to avoid indiscriminate low cost technology for fruit flies control and to avoid indiscriminate use of the insecticides. use of the insecticides.

Keeping in view the above facts the present project was Keeping in view the above facts the present project was under taken on different fruits viz., apple, mango, guava and ber at under taken on different fruits viz., apple, mango, guava and ber at their respective ecological zones viz., Murree, Multan, Sheikhupura their respective ecological zones viz., Murree, Multan, Sheikhupura and Faisalabad respectively.and Faisalabad respectively.

OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES

1.1. To study population dynamics and infestation percentage of fruit To study population dynamics and infestation percentage of fruit flies on various selected fruits apple, ber, mango and guava of flies on various selected fruits apple, ber, mango and guava of their respective ecological areas.their respective ecological areas.

2.2. To identify the species found damaging apple, ber, mango and To identify the species found damaging apple, ber, mango and guava fruits in their respective areas.guava fruits in their respective areas.

3.3. To determine the impact of abiotic factors on the population To determine the impact of abiotic factors on the population fluctuation and infestation percentage through simple correlation fluctuation and infestation percentage through simple correlation and by developing regression models.and by developing regression models.

4.4. To integrate various control measures viz., cultural, trapping, To integrate various control measures viz., cultural, trapping, baiting and use of selective insecticide for management and baiting and use of selective insecticide for management and suppression of fruit flies on one of the most affected fruit.suppression of fruit flies on one of the most affected fruit.

IDENTIFICATIONIDENTIFICATION

Adults were collected from each Adults were collected from each pheromone trap during fruiting season from each pheromone trap during fruiting season from each respective locality. These specimens were killed in respective locality. These specimens were killed in cyanide killing bottle and set on setting boards by cyanide killing bottle and set on setting boards by entomological pins No.16, labeled and stored entomological pins No.16, labeled and stored them in classified collection boxes. Naphthalene them in classified collection boxes. Naphthalene balls and Coopex powder was used in these balls and Coopex powder was used in these collection boxes for protection of specimens from collection boxes for protection of specimens from the attack of beetles, ants, etc. These specimens the attack of beetles, ants, etc. These specimens were identified up to species level with the help of were identified up to species level with the help of revolving stage and wild M3B binocular revolving stage and wild M3B binocular microscope having three magnifications i.e., microscope having three magnifications i.e., 10 10 XX 5.4 X, 10 5.4 X, 10 XX 16 X and 10 16 X and 10 XX 40 X. 40 X.

METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY

Studies were carried out on integrated pest management of Studies were carried out on integrated pest management of fruit flies. Four fruits viz., Apple, Ber', Guava and Mango at four fruit flies. Four fruits viz., Apple, Ber', Guava and Mango at four localities i.e Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan localities i.e Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan respectively were selected. The data on population dynamics, by respectively were selected. The data on population dynamics, by installing methyl euginol and cue lure traps and infestation installing methyl euginol and cue lure traps and infestation percentage by ring method were recorded for two consecutive years percentage by ring method were recorded for two consecutive years in each selected fruit of its respective locality. Fruit flies collected in each selected fruit of its respective locality. Fruit flies collected from each fruit plant were identified. from each fruit plant were identified.

The pest was managed through integrated approach The pest was managed through integrated approach including hoeing, baiting, trapping and using insecticide individually including hoeing, baiting, trapping and using insecticide individually and in their all possible combinations by selecting one showing and in their all possible combinations by selecting one showing maximum infestation. Impact of abiotic factor on population maximum infestation. Impact of abiotic factor on population fluctuation per trap and infestation percentage were determined by fluctuation per trap and infestation percentage were determined by processing the data into simple correlation, multiple regression processing the data into simple correlation, multiple regression models and principal component of analysis (PCA).models and principal component of analysis (PCA).

Map of Pakistan Showing localities (district) of conducting Map of Pakistan Showing localities (district) of conducting experimentsexperiments

1. Faisalabad2. Murree3. Multan4. Sheikhupura

POPULATION DYNAMICSPOPULATION DYNAMICS Eight gardens comprising not less than 30 trees of each fruit Eight gardens comprising not less than 30 trees of each fruit

viz., Apple, Ber, Guava and Mango in their respective areas i.e., viz., Apple, Ber, Guava and Mango in their respective areas i.e., Murree Hills, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan were selected. Sex Murree Hills, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan were selected. Sex attractant pheromones methyl euginol and cue Iure were used in traps attractant pheromones methyl euginol and cue Iure were used in traps for population monitoring. Each trap has cotton wicks soaked with 5-6 for population monitoring. Each trap has cotton wicks soaked with 5-6 ml sex attractants. Four gardens meant for methyl euginol and four for ml sex attractants. Four gardens meant for methyl euginol and four for cue lure in each locality. Traps were installed at fortnight interval and cue lure in each locality. Traps were installed at fortnight interval and remained there for 24 hours . The trap to trap distance was kept as 30 remained there for 24 hours . The trap to trap distance was kept as 30 + 5 m. Six traps per hectare were used in each garden at each + 5 m. Six traps per hectare were used in each garden at each locality. One garden considered as one replication and thus there locality. One garden considered as one replication and thus there were four replications for each trap at their respective localities. The were four replications for each trap at their respective localities. The data on adult fruit flies were recorded from each pheromone trap 24 data on adult fruit flies were recorded from each pheromone trap 24 hours after each installation. The duration of recording population data hours after each installation. The duration of recording population data was two consecutive fruiting season of each fruit.was two consecutive fruiting season of each fruit.

The observations were started at fruit formation and continued The observations were started at fruit formation and continued up to the maturity of the fruit when the trapped population reached to up to the maturity of the fruit when the trapped population reached to zero or negligible level.zero or negligible level.

INFESTATIONINFESTATION

ROLE OF WEATHER FACTORS ROLE OF WEATHER FACTORS EFFECTING FRUIT FLIES POPULATIONEFFECTING FRUIT FLIES POPULATION

Meteorological observations relevant to temperature, relative Meteorological observations relevant to temperature, relative humidity and rainfall were taken from the adjoining metrological humidity and rainfall were taken from the adjoining metrological department of each locality. The data were used to assess the effect department of each locality. The data were used to assess the effect of weather on the fruit flies population attacking different fruit plants at of weather on the fruit flies population attacking different fruit plants at their respective localities. their respective localities.

The impact of weather factors on the population fluctuation The impact of weather factors on the population fluctuation and infestation of fruit flies for each fruit was calculated by processing and infestation of fruit flies for each fruit was calculated by processing the data into simple correlation. The correlation between infestation the data into simple correlation. The correlation between infestation and population fluctuation of fruit flies was also calculated for both and population fluctuation of fruit flies was also calculated for both fruiting seasons separately and on cumulative basis. The data were fruiting seasons separately and on cumulative basis. The data were also processed for multivariate regression models among abiotic also processed for multivariate regression models among abiotic factors, population fluctuation and infestation with the objective to see factors, population fluctuation and infestation with the objective to see the actual role of weather factor on the population fluctuation and the actual role of weather factor on the population fluctuation and infestation of fruit flies. Principle Component of Analysis (PCA) was infestation of fruit flies. Principle Component of Analysis (PCA) was also performed to determine the influence of weather factors on also performed to determine the influence of weather factors on infestation and population of fruit flies.infestation and population of fruit flies.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIES ON GUAVAOF FRUIT FLIES ON GUAVA

Study was conducted in Guava orchards of District Study was conducted in Guava orchards of District Sheikhupura (showing maximum infestation of fruits caused by fruit Sheikhupura (showing maximum infestation of fruits caused by fruit flies). Four control practices viz., hoeing, baiting, sex attractants flies). Four control practices viz., hoeing, baiting, sex attractants pheromone (methyl euginol) and selective insecticides (Dipterex 80 pheromone (methyl euginol) and selective insecticides (Dipterex 80 SP) were applied singly and in all their possible combination. There SP) were applied singly and in all their possible combination. There were 16 treatments including control and each treatment was were 16 treatments including control and each treatment was repeated three times. Three fruit gardens not less than 30 trees repeated three times. Three fruit gardens not less than 30 trees were selected for each treatment. So there were 48 gardens in total. were selected for each treatment. So there were 48 gardens in total. The distance between one garden to another was not less than one The distance between one garden to another was not less than one kilometer. The specific detail of each treatment was as follows.kilometer. The specific detail of each treatment was as follows.

Sr. #Sr. # TreatmentsTreatments

T1T1 HoeingHoeing

T2T2 BaitingBaiting

T3T3 Sex pheromone (Methyl euginol)Sex pheromone (Methyl euginol)

T4T4 Chemical Control (Dipterex 80 SP @ 1 gm/l liter waterChemical Control (Dipterex 80 SP @ 1 gm/l liter water

T5T5 Hoeing + Baiting (T1 + T2)Hoeing + Baiting (T1 + T2)

T6T6 Hoeing + Sex PheromoneHoeing + Sex Pheromone__(T 1 + T3)(T 1 + T3)

T7T7 Hoeing + Chemical Control (T1 + T4)Hoeing + Chemical Control (T1 + T4)

T8T8 Baiting + Methyl Euginol (T2 + T3)Baiting + Methyl Euginol (T2 + T3)

T9T9 Baiting + Chemical Control (T2 + T4)Baiting + Chemical Control (T2 + T4)

T10T10 Methyl Euginol + Chemical Control T3+T4Methyl Euginol + Chemical Control T3+T4

T11T11 Hoeing + Baiting + Methyl Euginol (T1+T2+T3)Hoeing + Baiting + Methyl Euginol (T1+T2+T3)

T12T12 Hoeing + Baiting + Chemical Control (T1+T2+T4)Hoeing + Baiting + Chemical Control (T1+T2+T4)

T13T13 Hoeing + Methyl Euginol +Chemical Control (Tl+T3+T4)Hoeing + Methyl Euginol +Chemical Control (Tl+T3+T4)

T14T14 Baiting + Methyl Euginol + Chemical Control (T2+T3+T4)Baiting + Methyl Euginol + Chemical Control (T2+T3+T4)

T15T15 Hoeing +Baiting + Methyl Euginol +Chemical Control (Ti+T2+T3+T4)Hoeing +Baiting + Methyl Euginol +Chemical Control (Ti+T2+T3+T4)

T16T16 ControlControl

VARIOUS TREATMENTS AND THEIR ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS

MASS TRAPPING WITH METHYL MASS TRAPPING WITH METHYL EUGINOLEUGINOL

The traps with sex attractant methyl euginol were used for The traps with sex attractant methyl euginol were used for mass trapping of fruit flies in guava orchards as the attractant mass trapping of fruit flies in guava orchards as the attractant showed maximum catches of adult fruit flies comparing with cue showed maximum catches of adult fruit flies comparing with cue lure. The traps were installed 1.5 meter above ground level on a lure. The traps were installed 1.5 meter above ground level on a branch of the trees. The trap to trap distance was maintained at 30 branch of the trees. The trap to trap distance was maintained at 30 meter and 6 traps/hectare. The cotton wicks soaked with methyl meter and 6 traps/hectare. The cotton wicks soaked with methyl euginol were placed in the traps and changed at 15 days interval. euginol were placed in the traps and changed at 15 days interval. The data on trapped adult population of fruit flies were recorded The data on trapped adult population of fruit flies were recorded fortnightly through out the fruiting season.fortnightly through out the fruiting season.

HOEINGHOEINGHoeing was done under the canopy of each tree of Hoeing was done under the canopy of each tree of

respective selected garden at 15 days interval regularly throughout respective selected garden at 15 days interval regularly throughout the fruiting season with the help of spade up to 10-12mm.the fruiting season with the help of spade up to 10-12mm.

BAITINGBAITINGA wooden sheet measuring 15 x 30 cm was used for baiting A wooden sheet measuring 15 x 30 cm was used for baiting

and hanged with a branch 1.5 meter above ground level of tree. The and hanged with a branch 1.5 meter above ground level of tree. The distance between two baits was maintained as 30 meters and 6 distance between two baits was maintained as 30 meters and 6 baiting traps per hectare were used and changed after one month baiting traps per hectare were used and changed after one month interval. Following are the bait ingredients which were usedinterval. Following are the bait ingredients which were used

Name of ingredientName of ingredient Quantity Quantity

MolassesMolasses 12 gm12 gm Dipterex 80 SPDipterex 80 SP 12 gm12 gm Petroleum JellyPetroleum Jelly 6 gm6 gm Protein hydrolysateProtein hydrolysate 6 gm6 gm

CHEMICAL CONTROLCHEMICAL CONTROL Dipterex 80 SP (Trichlorfon) @ 1 gm/ litre water was sprayed Dipterex 80 SP (Trichlorfon) @ 1 gm/ litre water was sprayed

at 15 days interval to selective gardens in respective treatmentsat 15 days interval to selective gardens in respective treatments

RESULTSRESULTS

Study was carried out to monitor fruit flies population and Study was carried out to monitor fruit flies population and infestation percentage on different fruit plant viz., apple, 'ber', guava infestation percentage on different fruit plant viz., apple, 'ber', guava and mango in their respective localities viz., Murree, Faisalabad, and mango in their respective localities viz., Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan Districts. Methyl euginol use as sex Sheikhupura and Multan Districts. Methyl euginol use as sex attractant pheromones used for population monitoring at each locality. attractant pheromones used for population monitoring at each locality. Infestation percentage of fruits was recorded from fruit trees by Infestation percentage of fruits was recorded from fruit trees by counting healthy and infested fruits. The impact of abiotic factors was counting healthy and infested fruits. The impact of abiotic factors was also calculated for each locality on the population and infestation also calculated for each locality on the population and infestation percentage bases, by processing the data for simple correlation, percentage bases, by processing the data for simple correlation, multivariate regression models and Principal Component Analysis multivariate regression models and Principal Component Analysis (PCA).(PCA).

Various control measures like hoeing, haiting (Protein Various control measures like hoeing, haiting (Protein hydrolysate), pheromone(Methyl eugenol) and application of hydrolysate), pheromone(Methyl eugenol) and application of insecticide (insecticide (‘‘Dipterex 80 sp) were integrated on guava for the control Dipterex 80 sp) were integrated on guava for the control

of fruit flies. of fruit flies.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN APPLE ORCHARDS TRAPPED BY METHYL EUGINOL FRUIT FLIES IN APPLE ORCHARDS TRAPPED BY METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION AT MURREE.AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION AT MURREE.

S.O.V.S.O.V. D.F.D.F. M.S.M.S. F. RATIOF. RATIO

ReplicationsReplications 33 1.9611.961 2.792.79

Years (Y)Years (Y) 11 0.0800.080 0.110.11 NSNS

Traps (T)Traps (T) 11 2.0092.009 2.862.86 NSNS

YXTYXT 11 0.0090.009 0.010.01 NSNS

Dates (D)Dates (D) 66 1.0631.063 1.511.51 NSNS

YXDYXD 66 0.8720.872 1.241.24 NSNS

TXDTXD 66 0.1340.134 0.190.19 NSNS

YXTXDYXTXD 66 0.2170.217 0.310.31 NSNS

ErrorError 8181 0.7020.702

The analysis of variance reveals non-significant differences between years, traps, among dates and in their all possible interactions.

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN APPLE ORCHARDS OF MURREE HILLS

DatesDates Population / Trap/ DayPopulation / Trap/ Day MeansMeans

July 1July 1 1.00 (1.22)1.00 (1.22) 0.62 (0.93)0.62 (0.93) 0.810.81

July 15July 15 1.37 (1.37)1.37 (1.37) 0.87 (1.17)0.87 (1.17) 1.121.12

August 1August 1 1.62 (1.45)1.62 (1.45) 1.00 (1.22)1.00 (1.22) 1.311.31

August 15August 15 0.87 (1.17)0.87 (1.17) 1.37 (1.36)1.37 (1.36) 1.121.12

September ISeptember I 0.87 (1.17)0.87 (1.17) 0.75 (1.12)0.75 (1.12) 0.810.81

September 15September 15 0.62 (1.06)0.62 (1.06) 1.00 (1.22)1.00 (1.22) 0.810.81

October 1October 1 0.37 (0.93)0.37 (0.93) 0.75 (1.12)0.75 (1.12) 0.560.56

MeansMeans 0.960.96 0.910.91

The dates of observation viz., July 15th , August 1st and August 15th showed comparatively higher level of population of fruit flies on apple orchards of Murree Hills.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION

(%) (%) IN APPLE FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF IN APPLE FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF

MURREE HILLS.MURREE HILLS.



Years (Y)Years (Y)11 1.4221.422 4.494.49 **

Date (D)Date (D)77 28.16028.160

88.888.8

22****

YXDYXD 77 1.3671.367 4.814.81 ****

ErrorError 4545 0.3170.317

Analysis of variance reveals significant differences between years, Analysis of variance reveals significant differences between years,

among dates of observation and in their interaction. among dates of observation and in their interaction.

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%) IN APPLE FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF MURREE HILLS ON VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION

DATES OF DATES OF

OBSERVATIONSOBSERVATIONSFRUIT INFESTATION (%)FRUIT INFESTATION (%)

AVERAGEAVERAGE

July 15July 15 0.00 (0.71) F0.00 (0.71) F 0.00 (0.71) F0.00 (0.71) F 0.00 D0.00 D

August 1August 1 0.29(0.88) F0.29(0.88) F 0.64(1.07) F0.64(1.07) F 0.46 D0.46 D

August 15August 15 1.54 (1.44) DE1.54 (1.44) DE 1.95(1.56) D1.95(1.56) D 1.74 C1.74 C

September 1September 1 2.80 (1.82) C2.80 (1.82) C 3.06 (1.89) C3.06 (1.89) C 2.93 B2.93 B

September 15September 15 4.34 (2.20) AB4.34 (2.20) AB 4.72 (2.28) AB4.72 (2.28) AB 4.53 A4.53 A

October 1October 15.15.1 (2.37) (2.37)

AA4.1 1 (2.15) B4.1 1 (2.15) B 4.61 A4.61 A

October 15October 15 5.18 (2.38) A5.18 (2.38) A 3.89 (2.09) B3.89 (2.09) B 4.51 A4.51 A

November 1November 1 2.36 (1.69) CD2.36 (1.69) CD 0.79 (1.15) EF0.79 (1.15) EF 1.57 C1.57 C

MeansMeans 2.69 A2.69 A 2.392.39

Fruit flies caused infestation to apple throughout the fruiting season. The observations recorded on September 15th , October 1st and October 15th showed maximum infestation.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN `BER' ORCHARDS TRAPPED BY POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN `BER' ORCHARDS TRAPPED BY METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION OBSERVATION

The analysis of variance of the data regarding population of fruit flies in `ber' orchards trapped by methyl euginol and cue lure at various dates of observation in Faisalabad District reveals highly significant differences among dates of observation and inter-actional response between years and dates of observation. The population did not differ significantly between years, traps, interaction of years and traps, traps and dates of observation and years, traps and dates of observation.





YXTYXT 11 0.0310.031 0.010.01 NSNS

Dates (D)Dates (D) 77 409.857409.857 85.4585.45 ****

YXDYXD 77 112.839112.839 23.5323.53 **

TXDTXD 77 8.0138.013 1.671.67 NSNS

YXTXDYXTXD 77 4.4064.406 0.920.92 NSNS

ErrorError 9393 4.7964.796

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES ON ‘BER' ORCHARDS OF DISTRICT FAISALABADFRUIT FLIES ON ‘BER' ORCHARDS OF DISTRICT FAISALABAD

DatesDates Population / Trap /DayPopulation / Trap /Day MeanMean

December 15December 15 035 (1.I2) E035 (1.I2) E 0.50 (1.00 E0.50 (1.00 E 0.62 E0.62 E

January 1January 1 1.0 (1.22) E1.0 (1.22) E 0.63 (1.06) E0.63 (1.06) E 0.81 E0.81 E

January 15January 15 3.50 (2.00) D3.50 (2.00) D 0.87 (I.17) E0.87 (I.17) E 2.18 DE2.18 DE

February IFebruary I 7.25 (2.78) C7.25 (2.78) C 3.87 (2.09) D3.87 (2.09) D 5.56 C5.56 C

February 15February 15 12.75 (3.64) B12.75 (3.64) B 6.62 (2.67) C6.62 (2.67) C 9.68 B9.68 B

March 1March 1 16.75 (4.15) A16.75 (4.15) A 11.62 (3.48) B11.62 (3.48) B 14.18 A14.18 A

March 15March 15 6.12 (2.57) C6.12 (2.57) C 15.25 (3.97) A15.25 (3.97) A 10.68 B10.68 B

April 1April 1 0.62 (1.06) E0.62 (1.06) E 6.37 (2.62) C6.37 (2.62) C 3.50 D3.50 D

MeansMeans 6.096.09 5.725.72

Significant variations were again observed when the data of both the years pooled together. The observation taken on March 1st showed the highest population of fruit flies i.e., 14.18/trap/day followed by those of recorded on March 15th (10.68/trap/day) and February 15th (9.68/trap/day).

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%) (%)

ON `BER' FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN FAISALABAD.ON `BER' FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN FAISALABAD.


ReplicationsReplications 33 0.6100.610 0.84 0.84

Years (Y)Years (Y) 11 4.8844.884 5.09 *5.09 *

Date (D)Date (D) 77 244.493244.493 254.88 **254.88 **

YXDYXD 77 64.56564.565 67.33 **67.33 **

ErrorError 4545 0.9590.959

The analysis of variance shows a significant differences between years, among dates of observation and in their interaction

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%) ON `BER' FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FILIES IN FAISALABAD.

DatesDates AverageAverage

December 15December 15 0.15 (0.81) G0.15 (0.81) G 0.00 (0.71 G0.00 (0.71 G 0.07 G0.07 G

January 1January 1 3.40 (1.97) F3.40 (1.97) F 0.19 (0.83) G0.19 (0.83) G 1.79 F1.79 F

January 15January 15 5.20 (2.39) E5.20 (2.39) E 3.43 (1.98) F3.43 (1.98) F 4.32 E4.32 E

February 1February 1 8.25 (2.96) D8.25 (2.96) D 5.13 (2.37) E5.13 (2.37) E 6.69 D6.69 D

February 15February 15 14.70 (3.90) BC14.70 (3.90) BC 7.95 (2.91) D7.95 (2.91) D 11.33 B11.33 B

March IMarch I 15.63 (4.02) AB15.63 (4.02) AB 13.80 (3.78) C13.80 (3.78) C 14.72 A14.72 A

March 15March 15 4.01 (2.12) EF4.01 (2.12) EF 16.52 (4.13) A16.52 (4.13) A 10.26 C10.26 C

April 1April 1 0.09 (0.77) G0.09 (0.77) G 0.00 (0.71) G0.00 (0.71) G 0.04 G0.04 G

MeansMeans 6.43 A6.43 A 5.66 B5.66 B 6.046.04

The infestation appeared on December 15th i.e., 0.15% and jumped up to 3.40% on January 1st . The infestation increased tremendously on the subsequent dates of observation starting from 5.20% to 14.70% from January 15th to February 15th .




'Traps (T)'Traps (T) 11 3.2733.273 0.700.70 NSNS

YXTYXT 11 1.1141.114 0.240.24 NSNS

Dates (D)Dates (D) 1010 336.205336.205 71.8471.84 ****

YXDYXD 1010 0.9680.968 0.210.21 NSNS

TXDTXD 1010 14.34814.348 3.073.07 ****

YXTXDYXTXD 1010 0.4890.489 0.100.10 NSNS

ErrorError 129129 4.6804.680

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN GUAVA ORCHARDS TRAPPED BY METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE AT VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION IN DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA.

The analysis of variance of the data regarding population of fruit flies in guava orchards trapped by methyl euginol and cue lure at various dates of observation in District Sheikhupura. Variations were found to be significant among dates of observation and inter-actional response of dates of observation and traps. The responses of year, traps, interactions of year and date of observation and year, trap and date of observation were non-significant.

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN GUAVA ORCHARDS OF SHEIKHUPURA DISTRICT .

DatesDates Population /Trap/DayPopulation /Trap/Day MeanMean

May 1May 1 0.75 (1.12)0.75 (1.12) 0.87 (1.17)0.87 (1.17) 0.81 G0.81 G

May I5May I5 1.75 (1.50)1.75 (1.50) 1.62 (1.46)1.62 (1.46) 1.68 FG1.68 FG

June 1June 1 3.25 (1.94)3.25 (1.94) 3.00 (1.87)3.00 (1.87) 3.12 EF3.12 EF

June 15June 15 4.87 (2.32)4.87 (2.32) 4.12 (2.15)4.12 (2.15) 4.50 DE4.50 DE

July IJuly I 6.37 (2.62)6.37 (2.62) 5.50 (2.45)5.50 (2.45) 5.93 CD5.93 CD

July 15July 15 6.25 (2.60)6.25 (2.60) 6.25 (2.60)6.25 (2.60) 6.25 C6.25 C

August 1August 1 8.25 (2.96)8.25 (2.96) 8.62 (3.02)8.62 (3.02) 8.43 B8.43 B

August 15August 15 14.00 (3.81)14.00 (3.81) 14.12 (3.82)14.12 (3.82) 14.06 A14.06 A

September 1September 1 14.25 (3.84)14.25 (3.84) 13.37 (3.72)13.37 (3.72) 13.81 A13.81 A

September 15September 15 5.50 (2.45)5.50 (2.45) 5.87 (2.52)5.87 (2.52) 5.66 CD5.66 CD

October 1October 1 1.12 (1.27)1.12 (1.27) 1.50 (1.41)1.50 (1.41) 1.31 G1.31 G

MeansMeans 6.036.03 5.895.89

Differences were found to be significant among dates of observation regarding population of fruit flies in guava orchards of Sheikhupura district when both the study years were computed together. Maximum population was recorded on August 15th i.e., 14.06/trap/day, which was at par with that of recorded on September 1st i.e., 13.81/trap/day. The population decreased down there after from 5.66 to 1.31/tap/day on September 15th and October 1st respectively. The population of fruit flies appeared on May 1st i.e., 0.81/trap/day. The increasing trend was recorded on the subsequent dates of observation gradually and the population reached to 8.43/trap/day on August 1st .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING

INFESTATION (%) OF GUAVA FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN INFESTATION (%) OF GUAVA FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN

ORCHARDS OF SHEIKHUPURA.ORCHARDS OF SHEIKHUPURA.

S.O.V.S.O.V. D.F.D.F. M.S. M.S. F. RATIOF. RATIO



Date (D)Date (D) 77 273.267273.267 270.77270.77 ****

YXDYXD 77 0.9540.954 0.940.94 NSNS

ErrorError 4545 1.0091.009

The analysis of variance reveals highly significant variations among dates of observation. Non-significant differences were observed in response to years and interaction of years and dates of observation

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%) IN GUAVA FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF SHEIKHUPURE .

DatesDates INFESTATION (%)INFESTATION (%) AverageAverage

May 15May 15 0.14 (0.80)0.14 (0.80) 0.00 (0.71)0.00 (0.71) 0.07 H0.07 H

June 1June 1 2.48 (1.73)2.48 (1.73) 2.52 (1.74)2.52 (1.74) 2.50G2.50G

June 15June 15 4.05 (2.13)4.05 (2.13) 4.15 (2.16)4.15 (2.16) 4.10 F4.10 F

July 1July 1 5.33 (2.41)5.33 (2.41) 5.97 (2.54)5.97 (2.54) 5.65 E5.65 E

July 15July 15 7.33 (2.80)7.33 (2.80) 7.65 (2.85)7.65 (2.85) 7.48 D7.48 D

August IAugust I 10.76 (3.36)10.76 (3.36) 10.84 (3.77)10.84 (3.77) 10.80 C10.80 C

August 15August 15 13.98 (3.81)13.98 (3.81) 15.75 (4.03)15.75 (4.03) 13.87 B13.87 B


September 15September 15 14.19 (3.83)14.19 (3.83) 14.58 (3.88)14.58 (3.88) 14.39 B14.39 B

October 1October 1 1.80 (1.52)1.80 (1.52) 0.00 (0.71)0.00 (0.71) 0.90 I I0.90 I I

MeansMeans 7.567.56 7.767.76

The infestation reached to a peak level of 15.85% on September 1st followed by 14.39% and 13.87% on September 15th and August 15th , respectively. The infestation after September 15th decreased sharply and reached to 0.90%. The month of August and September was found to be very crucial which showed higher level of infestation on guava fruit





YXTYXT 88 0.6000.600 0.150.15 NSNS

Dates (D)Dates (D) 1414 142.677142.677 34.9734.97 * ** *

YXDYXD 1414 1.8741.874 0.460.46 NSNS

TXDTXD 1414 8.6068.606 2.112.11 NSNS

YXTXDYXTXD 1414 0.8140.814 0.200.20 NSNS

ErrorError 177177 4.0804.080

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN MANGO ORCHARDS OF MULTAN DISTRICT TRAPPED BY METHYL EUGINOL AND CUE LURE

The results reveal significant differences among dates of observation. The response of years, traps and in their all interactions on population fluctuations was non-significant.

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES IN MANGO ORCHARDS OF MULTAN DISTRICT.

DatesDates Population/Trap/DayPopulation/Trap/Day MeansMeans

March 1March 1 2.50 (1.73)2.50 (1.73) 3.75 (2.06)3.75 (2.06) 3.12G3.12G

March 15March 15 4.62 (2.26)4.62 (2.26) 4.37 (2.21)4.37 (2.21) 4.50 FG4.50 FG

April 1April 1 `5.25 (2.40)`5.25 (2.40) 5.00 (2.34)5.00 (2.34) 5.12 F5.12 F

April 15April 15 6.37 (2.62)6.37 (2.62) 5.62 (2.47)5.62 (2.47) 6.00 EF6.00 EF

May 1May 1 7.25 (2.78)7.25 (2.78) 6.87 (2.71)6.87 (2.71) 7.06 DE7.06 DE

May 15May 15 7.37 (2.81)7.37 (2.81) 7.37 (2.80)7.37 (2.80) 7.37 DE.7.37 DE.

June 1June 1 7.25 (2.78)7.25 (2.78) 7.87 (2.89)7.87 (2.89) 7.56 DE7.56 DE

June 15June 15 6.62 (2.67)6.62 (2.67) 8.25 (2.92)8.25 (2.92) 8.45 CD8.45 CD

July 1July 1 9.67 (3.19)9.67 (3.19) 9.25 (3.12)9.25 (3.12) 9.56 BC9.56 BC

July 15July 15 10.75 (3.35)10.75 (3.35) 10.37 (3.29)10.37 (3.29) 10.56 AB10.56 AB

August 1August 1 11.00 (3.39)11.00 (3.39) 10.87 (3.37)10.87 (3.37) 11.18A11.18A

August 15August 15 9.62 (3.18)9.62 (3.18) 9.75 (3.20)9.75 (3.20) 9.68 BC9.68 BC

September 1September 1 7.25 (2.78)7.25 (2.78) 7.50 (2.82)7.50 (2.82) 7.37 DE7.37 DE

September 15September 15 4.25 (2.18)4.25 (2.18) 5.87 (2.52)5.87 (2.52) 5.06 F5.06 F

October 1October 1 0.00 (0.71)0.00 (0.71) 0.00 (0.71)0.00 (0.71) 0.00.0 HH

MeansMeans 6.836.83 6.856.85The results reveal significant difference among dates of observation. The highest population was recorded on August 1st i.e., 11.18/trap/day which did not differ from 10.56/trap/day on July 15th. The increase was gradual throughout the study period up to August 1st . The population decreased subsequently up to 0.00 level on October 1st .

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%) ON MANGO FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF MULTAN .


ReplicationsReplications33 3.413.41 9.089.08

Years (Y)Years (Y) 11 2.532.53 6.736.73 ****

Date (D)Date (D) 77 102.89102.89 273.46273.46 ****

YXDYXD 77 0.180.18 0.560.56 NSNS

ErrorError 4545 0.370.37

The analysis of variance in orchards of Multan district reveals highly significant differences between years and among dates of observation. The inter-actional response between years and dates of observation was non-significant.

MEANS COMPARISON OF THE DATA REGARDING INFESTATION (%) ON MANGO FRUIT CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN ORCHARDS OF MULTAN DISTRICT

DatesDates AverageAverage

June 1June 1 1.04 (1.24)1.04 (1.24) 0.99 (1.22)0.99 (1.22) 1.01 FG1.01 FG

June 15June 15 1.31 (1.34)1.31 (1.34) 1.39 (1.37)1.39 (1.37) 1.35 F1.35 F

July 1July 1 5.16 (2.37)5.16 (2.37) 4.51 (2.24)4.51 (2.24) 4.85 E4.85 E

July 15July 15 5.42 (2.43)5.42 (2.43) 5.01 (2.34)5.01 (2.34) 5.21 E5.21 E

August 1August 1 6.52 (2.64)6.52 (2.64) 6.17 (2.58)6.17 (2.58) 6.35 D6.35 D

August 15August 15 7.76 (2.87)7.76 (2.87) 7.26 (2.78)7.26 (2.78) 7.51 C7.51 C

September 1September 1 8.45 (2.99)8.45 (2.99) 8.11 (2.93)8.11 (2.93) 8.27 B8.27 B


October 1October 1 9.69 (3.19)9.69 (3.19) 9.67 (3.19)9.67 (3.19) 9.68 A9.68 A

October 15October 15 0.93 (1.19)0.93 (1.19) 0.00 (0.71)0.00 (0.71) 0.46 G0.46 G

MeansMeans 5.67 A5.67 A 5.32 B5.32 B

The observation recorded on September 15th showed maximum infestation of mango fruit. The month of September and 15th October found to be very favorable for insect development.

TOTAL FRUIT FLIES CATCHES, THEIR PERCENT EXISTANCE AND INFESTATION IN VARIOUS FRUITS.

Name of FruitName of Fruit Total CatchesTotal Catches Existence (%)Existence (%) Infestation (%)Infestation (%)

AppleApple 5353 3.003.00 2.392.39

`Ber'`Ber' 366366 20.7520.75 5.665.66

GuavaGuava 524524 29.7029.70 7.567.56

MangoMango 821821 46.5446.54 5.325.32

The percent existence was found to be positive. The minimum existence was recorded on apple that was 3.00%. The trapped adults were increased on other fruits i.e., 20.75%, 29.70 and 46,54% in `ber ', guava and mango orchards, respectively. The percent infestation was maximum in guava orchards followed by 'ber' mango and apple. These results showed that the infestation increased as the trapped adults population increased in case of apple, 'ber' and guava but in case of mango in comparison with the other fruits, variations in results were found in this statement, because the adults trapped were maximum in mango as compared to guava but infestation was the highest in guava as compared to mango.

PERCENT EXISTENCE OF FRUIT FLY SPECIES OF DIFFERENT SELECTED FRUITS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE LQCALITIES.

PERECNT EXISTENCEPERECNT EXISTENCE

Sr. No.Sr. No. Name of SpeciesName of Species Name of FruitsName of Fruits

AppleApple `Ber'`Ber' GuavaGuava MangoMango

11 Bactrocera dorsalis Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)(Hendel) 33.9633.96 -- 46.3746.37

22 B. affinis B. affinis (Hardy)(Hardy) 4.754.75

33 B. tau B. tau (Walker)(Walker) 9.439.43 6.296.29

44 B. scutellaris B. scutellaris (Bezzi)(Bezzi) 5.665.66

55 B. diversa B. diversa (Coquillentt)(Coquillentt) 7.557.55

66 B. cucurbitae B. cucurbitae (Coquillett)(Coquillett) 15.0915.09 -- 9.929.92 21.8021.80

77 B. zonala B. zonala (Saunders)(Saunders) 28.3028.30 11.7411.74 49.6249.62 74.6674.66

8.8. B. abbasi sp. nov.B. abbasi sp. nov. 6.876.87

99 Corpomya incomplela Corpomya incomplela (Becker)(Becker) 51.9151.91 --

1010 C. Vesuviana C. Vesuviana -- 36.3436.34 --The fruit flies caught by methyl euginol were identified from each fruit. In

apple, B. dorsalis (Hendel) was dominant i.e., 33.96% existence followed by B. zonata (28.30%). In Ber, C. incomplela (Becker) was dominant i.e., 51.91% existence followed by C. Vesuviana (36.34%). In Guava, B. zonata (Saunder) was dominant i.e., 49.62% existence followed by B. dorsalis (46.37%). In Mango, B. zonata (Saunder) was dominant i.e., 74.66% existence followed by B. cucurbitae (Coquillett ) i.e (21.80%).

..

GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF WEATHER FACTORS, POPULATION WEATHER FACTORS, POPULATION OF FRUIT FLIES PER TRAP PER DAY OF FRUIT FLIES PER TRAP PER DAY

AND INFESTATION PERCENTAGE AND INFESTATION PERCENTAGE OF FRUIT ON DIFFERENT DATES OF OF FRUIT ON DIFFERENT DATES OF

OBSERVATION OBSERVATION

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE DATA REGARDING FRUIT INFESTATION (%) CAUSED BY FRUIT FLIES IN DIFFERENT TREATMENTS ON VARIOUS DATES OF OBSERVATION IN GUAVA ORCHARDS OF DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA.

S.O.V.S.O.V. D.F.D.F. M.S.M.S. F. RatioF. Ratio

ReplicationReplication22 0.3280.328 0.350.35

Dates of Observations (D)Dates of Observations (D)1010 1661.5831661.583 1795.661795.66 ****

Treatments (T)Treatments (T) 1515 1306.8281306.828 1412.281412.28 ****

D X TD X T 150150 91.50091.500 98.8898.88 ****

ErrorError 350350 0.9250.925

The results show highly significant differences among dates of observation, treatments and between interaction of dates of observation and treatments.

TreatmentsTreatments Infestation (%)Infestation (%) % infestation decreased% infestation decreasedHoeing (H)Hoeing (H) 6.89c6.89c 76.5276.52Baiting (B)Baiting (B) 6.87 c6.87 c 76.5876.58

Methyl euginol (ME)Methyl euginol (ME) 6.82 c6.82 c 76.7676.76Diptrex 80 SP (C)Diptrex 80 SP (C) 8.48 b8.48 b 71.0971.09

HXBHXB 5.72 de5.72 de 80.5080.50HXMEHXME 5.73 dc5.73 dc 80.4780.47HXCHXC 4.30 f4.30 f 85.3485.34

BXMEBXME 6.17 d6.17 d 78.9778.97BXCBXC 4.12 f4.12 f 85.9585.95

MEXCMEXC 4.34 f4.34 f 85.2185.21HXBXMEHXBXME 5.39 a5.39 a 81.6381.63IIXII XCIIXII XC 3.11 gh3.11 gh 89.4089.40

HXMEXCHXMEXC 2.86 hi2.86 hi 90.2590.25BXME XCBXME XC 3.45 g3.45 g 88.2488.24

BXHXMEXCBXHXMEXC 2.44 i2.44 i 91.6891.68

ControlControl 29.34 a29.34 a

NTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIES BASED ON NTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIES BASED ON

INFESTATION (%) OF GUAVA FRUITS DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA .INFESTATION (%) OF GUAVA FRUITS DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA .

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF FRUIT FLIES IN GUAVA ORCHARDSFRUIT FLIES IN GUAVA ORCHARDS

Significant differences were found to exist among treatments. The Significant differences were found to exist among treatments. The maximum infestation was recorded to be 29.34% in control gardens, which maximum infestation was recorded to be 29.34% in control gardens, which differed significantly from all other treatments. The minimum infestation differed significantly from all other treatments. The minimum infestation (2.44%) was found in that treatment where all the control operations were (2.44%) was found in that treatment where all the control operations were integrated followed by 2.86% infestation in that treatment where hoeing + integrated followed by 2.86% infestation in that treatment where hoeing + methyl euginol and chemical control were applied. A similar trend was also methyl euginol and chemical control were applied. A similar trend was also observed between T12 (hoeing + baiting + chemical control) and TI4 (baiting + observed between T12 (hoeing + baiting + chemical control) and TI4 (baiting + methyl euginol + chemical control) with 3.11% and 3.45% fruit infestation methyl euginol + chemical control) with 3.11% and 3.45% fruit infestation respectively. Non-significant difference was found among Tl5 (hoeing + respectively. Non-significant difference was found among Tl5 (hoeing + baiting), T6 (hoeing + methyl euginol) and T1(hoeing). Similarly the treatments baiting), T6 (hoeing + methyl euginol) and T1(hoeing). Similarly the treatments viz.. hoeing. baiting and methyl euginol showed non-significant differences viz.. hoeing. baiting and methyl euginol showed non-significant differences among themselves with 6.89. 6.87 and 6.82% fruit infestation. respectively. among themselves with 6.89. 6.87 and 6.82% fruit infestation. respectively. The combination of baiting and methyl euginol resulted 6.17% infestation and The combination of baiting and methyl euginol resulted 6.17% infestation and differed significantly from all other treatments. Similarly the chemical differed significantly from all other treatments. Similarly the chemical application alone showed 8.48% fruit infestation and also differed significantly application alone showed 8.48% fruit infestation and also differed significantly from all other teatments. A non-significant difference was also recorded among from all other teatments. A non-significant difference was also recorded among T7 (hoeing + chemical control), T9 (baiting + chemical control) and T10 (methyl T7 (hoeing + chemical control), T9 (baiting + chemical control) and T10 (methyl euginol + chemical control) having 4.30, 4.12 and 4.34% fruit infestation, euginol + chemical control) having 4.30, 4.12 and 4.34% fruit infestation, respectively.respectively.

ROLE OF ABIOTIC FACTORS ON POPULATION ROLE OF ABIOTIC FACTORS ON POPULATION FLUCTUATION AND INFESTATION FLUCTUATION AND INFESTATION

PERCENTAGE OF FRUITSPERCENTAGE OF FRUITSAPPLE FRUITAPPLE FRUIT

On an average basis rain fall and relative humidity showed On an average basis rain fall and relative humidity showed significant and positive correlation with population and infestation, significant and positive correlation with population and infestation, respectively. Principle Component Analysis revealed that rainfall is important respectively. Principle Component Analysis revealed that rainfall is important factor.factor.

BER FRUITBER FRUITAll the factors played non-significant effect on the population All the factors played non-significant effect on the population

fluctuation and infestation of fruit flies except relative humidity which played fluctuation and infestation of fruit flies except relative humidity which played significant role with negative response on population.significant role with negative response on population.

GUAVA FRUITSGUAVA FRUITSA biotic factors showed positive and significant contribution in A biotic factors showed positive and significant contribution in

infestation except maximum temperature which showed negative correlation. infestation except maximum temperature which showed negative correlation. when all abiotic factors were computed together for multiple regression. when all abiotic factors were computed together for multiple regression. Rainfall again proved to be an important factor in combination with maximum Rainfall again proved to be an important factor in combination with maximum temperature showing contrasting behavior and minimum temperature and temperature showing contrasting behavior and minimum temperature and relative humidity with positive signs. relative humidity with positive signs.

MANGO FRUITMANGO FRUITAll the a biotic factors showed non-significant correlation with All the a biotic factors showed non-significant correlation with

population fluctuation of fruit flies. Minimum temperature played a significant population fluctuation of fruit flies. Minimum temperature played a significant role with positive sign on population fluctuation. Temperatures and relative role with positive sign on population fluctuation. Temperatures and relative humidity were important for infestation. Rainfall appeared as an important humidity were important for infestation. Rainfall appeared as an important factor with positive sign in combination of temperatures and relative humidityfactor with positive sign in combination of temperatures and relative humidity

AVERAGE EFFECT OF ABIOTIC AVERAGE EFFECT OF ABIOTIC FACTORSFACTORS

On an average basis of the data for all the fruits, population On an average basis of the data for all the fruits, population of fruit flies did not affected significantly by weather factors, of fruit flies did not affected significantly by weather factors, however, temperatures and humidity showed a significant and however, temperatures and humidity showed a significant and positive correlation with infestation percentage of the fruits. Principle positive correlation with infestation percentage of the fruits. Principle Component Analysis showed that rainfall with positive sign Component Analysis showed that rainfall with positive sign appeared to be an important factor with contrasting behavior of appeared to be an important factor with contrasting behavior of temperatures. The present findings can not be compared with those temperatures. The present findings can not be compared with those of Allwood and Drew (1996) who reported that the population of of Allwood and Drew (1996) who reported that the population of B. B. SppSpp. . increased with the onset of higher temperature and moisture increased with the onset of higher temperature and moisture level.level.

RESULTS CAN SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWSRESULTS CAN SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS

Low population of fruit flies was recorded on apple at Murree Hills Low population of fruit flies was recorded on apple at Murree Hills ranged from minimum of 0.37 to maximum of 1.62/trap/day on ranged from minimum of 0.37 to maximum of 1.62/trap/day on October 1October 1stst and August 1 and August 1stst , respectively. , respectively.

The second fortnight of February and the first fortnight of March was The second fortnight of February and the first fortnight of March was crucial for ber' fruits which showed maximum catches of fruit flies crucial for ber' fruits which showed maximum catches of fruit flies whereas for guava fruits the months of August and September were whereas for guava fruits the months of August and September were important. Similarly the months of July and August showed important. Similarly the months of July and August showed maximum adult catches of fruit flies in mango orchards.maximum adult catches of fruit flies in mango orchards.

Second fortnight of August and first fortnight of September showed Second fortnight of August and first fortnight of September showed maximum population trapped by pheromones in guava orchards.maximum population trapped by pheromones in guava orchards.

In case of mango fruit, maximum adult catches were found on In case of mango fruit, maximum adult catches were found on September 15September 15thth and did not differ significantly from those of and did not differ significantly from those of recorded on October 1recorded on October 1stst . .

The population of fruit flies remained present throughout the fruiting The population of fruit flies remained present throughout the fruiting season from flowering to maturity in all fruits.season from flowering to maturity in all fruits.

The maximum infestation of fruit flies in apple orchards was recorded to be The maximum infestation of fruit flies in apple orchards was recorded to be 4.61% on October 14.61% on October 1stst and was statistically at par with 4.53 and 4.51% recorded and was statistically at par with 4.53 and 4.51% recorded on September 15on September 15thth and October 15 and October 15thth , respectively. , respectively.

The maximum infestation was recorded to be 14.72% on March 1The maximum infestation was recorded to be 14.72% on March 1stst in ber' in ber' orchards followed by 11.33 and 10.26% on February 15orchards followed by 11.33 and 10.26% on February 15 thth and March 15 and March 15thth , , respectively.respectively.

Guava fruit affected maximum showing maximum infestation i.e. 7.56% Guava fruit affected maximum showing maximum infestation i.e. 7.56% followed by 5.66, 5.32 and 2.39% on `ber', mango and apple, respectivelyfollowed by 5.66, 5.32 and 2.39% on `ber', mango and apple, respectively

The methyl euginol traps showed maximum adult of fruit flies in all the fruit The methyl euginol traps showed maximum adult of fruit flies in all the fruit orchards in Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan.orchards in Murree, Faisalabad, Sheikhupura and Multan.

On an average weather factors did not play significant role towards population On an average weather factors did not play significant role towards population fluctuation whereas infestation percentage affected significantly by fluctuation whereas infestation percentage affected significantly by temperatures and relative humidity with positive responses.temperatures and relative humidity with positive responses.

Rainfall proved to be the most important factor with positive response in Rainfall proved to be the most important factor with positive response in combination with contrasting behavior of temperature showing 85.96 percent combination with contrasting behavior of temperature showing 85.96 percent variance.variance.

All the control measures viz., hoeing, baiting, pheromone traps and use All the control measures viz., hoeing, baiting, pheromone traps and use of chemical (Diptrex 80 SP @ 1 gm/1 Iitre water) showed the lowest of chemical (Diptrex 80 SP @ 1 gm/1 Iitre water) showed the lowest infestation of it flies i.e., 2.44% in guava orchards followed by 2.86% in infestation of it flies i.e., 2.44% in guava orchards followed by 2.86% in combination of hoeing + pheromone + use of chemical.combination of hoeing + pheromone + use of chemical.

The infestation level 5.39% was recorded in combination of hoeing, The infestation level 5.39% was recorded in combination of hoeing, baiting and use of pheromone as against 29.34% infestation in control. baiting and use of pheromone as against 29.34% infestation in control. Thus infestation can be decreased up to 81.63% in the absence of Thus infestation can be decreased up to 81.63% in the absence of chemical application.chemical application.

The months of August and September showed maximum infestation The months of August and September showed maximum infestation (11.38 to 15.36%) in guava orchards.(11.38 to 15.36%) in guava orchards.

Download - Fruit fly Ahsan

Top Related