novel product solutions for fruit fly control
TRANSCRIPT
Novel product Solutions for fruit fly control.
Dr. Nayem Hassan,
Managing Director
Russell Bio Solutions ,UK
Overview - Fruit flies
➢ Fruit flies are considered one of the most important fruit pests contributing to a considerable loss of fruits and vegetables.
➢ Larvae feed on fruit pulp, making it soft and unfit for human consumption.
➢ Average fruit infestation has been reported up to 40-60%.
➢ The fruit fly causing annual losses to the fruit industry estimated in hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of yield reduction and market restrictions.
Fruit flies are considered one the most important vegetable and fruit pest contributing to
➢ Trade barriers – Fruit fly has greater impact on world trade in agricultural products than other invasive insect species.
➢ Currently Queensland fruit fly has been detected 18 times in New Zealand on 12th of May, 2019. According to Bio security New Zealand: This distinctive Australian pest poses a serious threat to our trade with other countries
➢ Due to possibility of invasive species penetration.
➢ A serious pesticide penetration to the food chain. High possibility of residue restrict fresh produce export.
Fruit flies are considered one the most important vegetable and fruit pest contributing to
There are approximately over 4000 fruit flies from 500 genera are reported in literature . Among them 250 species of which are of economic economically important and around 75 of them causing serious damage to fruits.
Fruit fly infestation could lead to in almost total crop failure.
Ceratitis capitata (medfly) is one species, which has around 250 to 400 hosts.
For example, this species is estimated to cause US$242 million/year in economic losses in Brazil alone (Oliveira at al., 2013).
Ceratitis capitata attacks over 250 species of fruits and vegetables. Females puncture fruit when they lay eggs and hatched larvae destroy the fruit.
Bactrocera fruit flies are the main fruit fly peststhroughout the Asia-Pacific region. The melon fruit fly(B. cucurbitae) is a major pest of cucurbit crops.
Anastrepha fruit flies are the main fruit fly pests throughout the Western Hemisphere.
Rhagoletis cerasi , the European cherry fruit fly is the most serious pest of cherries in Europe. Damage caused by larval feeding, which can result in losses of up to 100% if left uncontrolled.Drosophila suzukii, commonly called the spotted wing drosophila
Major fruit fly species:
Major fruit fly species:
Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata distribution map
Source: CABI, Invasive Species Compendium:https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/12367#toDistributionMaps
Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis distribution map
Source: CABI, Invasive Species Compendium:https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/17685, last updated, 08 January 2019
Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis distribution map
Bactrocera dorsalis is a highly invasive species. Native to Asia, Oriental fruit fly is now found in at least 65 countries, including parts of America and Oceania, and most of continental Africa (sub-Saharan countries).
The potential risk of its introduction to a new area is facilitated by increasing international tourism and trade, and is influenced by changes in climate and land use.
After introduction, it can easily disperse as it has a high reproductive potential, high biotic potential (short life cycle, up to 10 generations of offspring per year depending on temperature), a rapid dispersal ability and a broad host range.
The economic impact would result primarily from the loss of the export markets and the costly requirement of quarantine restrictions and eradication measures.
Anastrepha ludens (Mexican fruit fly) distribution map
Source: CABI, Invasive Species Compendium:https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/5654Last: modified 27 Sep, 2018
Anastrepha fraterculus (South American fruit fly) distribution map
Source: CABI, Invasive Species Compendium:https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/5648, last modified, 27 September 2018
Fruit fly population trend in Uganda
Figure: Seasonal population fluctuation of Ceratitis rosa and Ceratitis capitata (A) and Bactrocera dorsalis (B) in Mango orchard in the Lake Victoria Crescents zone, Uganda (`Mayamba et al. 2014)
Fruit fly population trend in Ghana
Figure: Annual fruit fly population trends at different locations (A) and using different para-pheromone attractants (B) used as a crude early warning guide for farmer in Ghana ( source: Billah and Wilson, 2016, Fruit fly Research and Development in Africa, 2016)
Fruit fly control system
3-Dimensional control strategy: Male A&K, Female A&K and Soil treatment with the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae.
1. Attract and kill Female – For the control of female population of fruit fly.2. Attract and kill Male – For the control of male population of fruit fly.3. Recharge – Metarhizium anisopliae for the control of overwintering pupae present in
soil before adult emergence.
Female Attract & Kill system
Composition➢ Protein hydrolysate and plant extract
(5 g/station)➢ Alpha cypermethrin (0.02%)
Composition➢Trimedlure 35% ➢Inert wax 64.5 % ➢ Abamectin 0.5%
Ceranock Female bait stations
Ceranock Malewax emulsion gel
Use of male and female attract and kill system has been proven effective for the control of Certatitiscapitata in Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq as a single application for season long protection (Bouagga et al.,2014 , Khalaf et al., 2014 , Aljazzar, 2014).
Ceranock - Attract and kill system for Med fly,Ceratitis capitata Control
Male Attract and kill system
Mango Fruit fly gel matrix
inside new blister pack sachet
• Fruit flies were attracted and killed at
a high rate for up to 8 weeks
• then the activity reduced but lures
were still was catching and insects
and were dying (10-12 weeks trial).
Video of
Fruit fly
attract
and kill
system
Field trial against Bactrocera dorsalis
Trial in Bangladesh: Attract and Kill system
Composition
➢2% w/w Metarhizium anisopliae➢ inert dextrose➢ a minimum of 9 x 1011cfu /Kg)
Recharge : Metarhizium anisopliae
Ceratitis capitata pupae infected with M. anisopliae
Formulation
Dextrose powder formulation and soluble in water.
A1
S1A3 A2 B1 (S1)
B3
B2
Effect of Ceranock “Attract and kill” system
Doses : 100 Ceranock female bait station
100 g of Ceranock male attract and kill gel
1Ha
1Ha
1Ha
1Ha1Ha
1Ha
Experimental period : 4 weeks before citrus fruits change color
Plot (B) Plot (A)
Experimental site : 1 ha (A1) from plot A + 1 ha (B1) from plot B
Ceranock Female bait station
Ceranock Male attract and kill gel
Experimental design
Strategie N°1: Ceranock “Attract and kill” system (S1)
A3 :
Co
ntr
ol
A2
S2
A1
S1
1Ha 1Ha1Ha
Plot (B) Plot (A)
Plot A3 : 5 foliage application of Lambda-cyhalotrine ; 100 artisanal bait station,
that were treated by Deltametrin and protein hydrolysate.
Plot B3 : 2 localized treatment were applied in the control plot, using a foliage
application of Lambda-cyhalotrine (1 row out of 4).
Control Plots : Farmers practices
Example of the bait station used in the
plot A3, locality of Temsia
B3:
Control
B2 (S2)
B1 (S1)
1Ha
1Ha
1Ha
1. Number of C.capitata adults
F
F
M
M
M
F
Male monitoring trap (Trimedlure )
Female monitoring trap ( Femilure )
Femilure and Trimedlure monitoring traps
catch data were collected weekly.
The trapped insects were identified,
counted, sexed and discarded.
15 selected trees from each plot.
100 fruits / tree = 1500 fruits/ha
weekly checked for Medfly punctures
2. Number of infested fruit
15 selected trees from each plot.
dropped fruit from selected trees were
recorded weekly
4 . Number of larvae /fruit
Dropped fruits were bought to the
laboratory in order to count the number of
larvae.
Data assessment
3. Number of dropped fruit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Control Ceranock & M.anisopliae (S2) Ceranock (S1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Control Ceranock & M.anisopliae (S2) Ceranock (S1)
Sub-plot Max
(Flies / Trap/Week)
Mean
(Flies / Trap/Week)
Control 13.5 6.41 aS1 7.8 3.74 bS2 8.8 3.41 b
1. Monitoring traps catches data
Plot (B)Plot (A)
N°
of
Fil
es/T
rap
/Week
N°
of
Fil
es/T
rap
/Week
Sub -plot Max of
Flies / Trap/Week
Mean
Flies / Trap/Week
Control 34 22.21 aS1 22 13.38 bS2 23 13.29 b
2. Rate of population reduction (RR)
RR (%) = (C-T/T) x 100; C = rate of Med-fly captures in the control plot ; T = rate of Med-fly captures in the treated plots .
% p
op
ula
tio
n r
ed
ucti
on
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Plot A Plot B
38.1%
44.9%
38.5%41.5%
Ceranock (S1)
Ceranock &M.anisopliae(S2)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
❖S1 and S2 were able to reduce Med-fly population in treated plots
comparing to the control ones.
❖Plot B : S1 reduced Med-fly population 3.2 % more than S2.
❖Plot A : S2 was more effective by 0.4 %.
❖Statistically : No significant difference between S1 and S2;
No interaction between treatments and plots.
3,68 a
7,2 a
0,94 b
4,1 b
0,87 b
3,9 b
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Larva / fruit Dropped fruit
Control Ceranock & M.anisopliae (S2) Ceranock (S1)
5,1 a
16,2 a
1.6 b
7,7 b
1 b
9,3 b
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Larva / fruit Dropped fruit
Control Ceranock & M.anisopliae (S2) Ceranock (S1)
N°
of
fru
its o
r la
rvae
N°
of
fru
its o
r la
rvae
Plot (B)Plot (A)
4. Dropped fruits and Larvae / fruit
S1 and S2 reduced the activity of Med-fly laying eggs much more than control plots
Statistically : High significant difference between the control and (S1, S2);
No significant difference between S1 and S2 in both plots.
1,66 A
0,72 B 0,70 B
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1.80%
2.00%
Control Ceranock &M.anisopliae (S2)
Ceranock (S1)
Control Ceranock & M.anisopliae (S2) Ceranock (S1)
0,91A
0,33 B 0,27 B
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
1.60%
1.80%
2.00%
Control Ceranock &M.anisopliae (S2)
Ceranock (S1)
Control Ceranock & M.anisopliae (S2) Ceranock (S1)
Plot (B)Plot (A)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3. Percentage of infested fruits
The percentage of infected fruits was calculated by dividing the number of
punctured fruits by the total number of sampled fruits in each plot.
% i
nfe
ste
dfr
uit
s
% i
nfe
ste
dfr
uit
s
Statistically : High significant difference between the control and (S1, S2);
No significant difference between S1 and S2 in both plots.
Cost (€) / ha
Conventional treatments 300
S1 (Ceranock) 110
S2 (Ceranock & Metmax) 95
300€/ha
110€/ha 95€/ha
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
5. Cost : Economic evaluation
❖Chemical treatments for C. capitata in Morocco on Citrus cost around 300
€/ha , approximately three times more than S1 and S2 ;
❖The substitution of 100 Ceranock devices by 2 kg of M. anisopliae (Metmax)
reduces the cost of the S2.
Pathogenicity of Metarhizium anisopliae against the Mediterranean fruit
fly Cetaritis capitata.
Fungal strain
• (Metmax) dextrose powder formulation of M.anisopliae
Insect rearing A colony of the wild strain of C. capitata was established in the laboratory of the institute of
agriculture and veterinary medicine Hassan 2, Agadir , Morocco. All biological material
(C.capitata ) were selected from the 3rd generation.
(A) Argania spinosa fruits infested by C.capitata; (B) Cages of adults rearing; (C)Scattering C.capitata eggs on the larval rearing substrate
A B C
Entomopathogenic fungus infested adult fruit flies.
B C
Bioassay Infection Methods DosesExperimental
desigh
Pupae▪Placed in a Petri-dish containing 20 g of
sterilized sand mixed with 4 ml of distilled
water.
▪Three doses of Metarhizium anisopliae KN14
had been scattered on the petri dishes.
1 g
0.5 g
0.25 g
Control
▪10 Replications
per Dose
▪20 insect
per Replication Larvae
Petri-dish containing 20
g of sterilized sand
mixed with 4 ml of
distilled water.
Larvae & pupae bioassays MATERIALS AND METHODS
67 a
60 a 59 a
2 b
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1 g 0,5 g 0,25 g Control
85 a
68 a63 a
5 b
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 g 0,5 g 0,25 g Control
% o
f m
ort
ali
ty%
of
mo
rtali
ty
Larval bioassay
Pupal bioassay
C.capitata pupae infected with
M.anisopliae strain KN14
❖high significant difference between
treated and untreated larvae;
❖high significant difference between
treated and untreated pupae;
❖1g concentration seems to be the most
effective;
❖Tukey (HSD) test, no significant
difference was observed between the
three doses.
RESULTS
RESULTS
57 A
48 A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Tested
Control Tested
Control
% of mortality
Adult bioassay
C.capitata adults infected with Metarhizium anisopliae
Activities in the Middle East and Asia
Activities in Africa
Fruit damage reduction in Mango against Bactrocera zonata
❖Fruit samples were collected from two treated plots and one untreated control plot.
❖Infestation rates of Bactrocerazonata for treatment plots A, treatment plot B, and and control C was 4.92%, 3.28%, and 27.87%, respectively.
❖Over 96% fruit fly control has been achieved in one hectare mango orchard.
Male B. zonata population reduction
USE OF ATTRACT AND KILL IN BANGLADESH
Innovative system and key advantages:- One off application- Season long protection.- Labour and services saving.- Over 95% protection of fruit and vegetable crops.
Male and female attract & kill method in bitter gourd & mango
Attract and kill technology on success story in Guava fruit fly control
Efficacy of attract and kill trapping method over untreated control
treatments in guava at BARI, Gazipur, Bangladesh during winter.
Treatments Trap catch
(Mean of 05 observations)
% fruit infestation
during harvest
% healthy fruit number
increase over untreated control
Male Female
IPM 28.8 b 3.8 b 2.4 b 88.4
Untreated control 167.4 a 12.6 a 20.7 a
Attract and kill technology on success story in bitter gourd fruit fly control
Table 6. Efficacy of attract and kill trapping method over untreated control
treatments in bitter gourd at BARI, Gazipur, Bangladesh during summer
Treatments Trap catch
(Mean of 08 observations)
% fruit infestation
during harvest
% healthy fruit number increase over
untreated control
Male Female
IPM 47.8 b 5.5 b 2.8 b 91.1
Untreated control 165.5 a 16.5 a 34.7 a
THE CUCURBIT FRUIT FLY – CONTROL IN BITTER GOURD
➢ Field trial was conducted and compare with mass trapping as well as insecticide spray.
➢ Over 95% control was achieved.
➢ Provided new tool to cucurbit growers to produce residue free fruits and vegetables.
➢ Access to export market complying MRL set by EurepGAP.
A new dry lure and trap are available from Russell IPM for monitoring spotted wing drosophila
A new longer-lasting ‘dry’ lure is available for SWD monitoring; Xlure SWD
Working with East Malling Research and Greenwich University, Russell IPM have developed a longer lasting SWD lure with an even release rate of attractive volatiles.
Key advantages:
➢ More attractive than competitive dry lure tested (Figure 2).
➢ Long lasting, up to 3 months. ➢ Consistent release rate of attractants
(Figure 3). ➢ Reduced catch of non-target species
compared to natural ➢ baits.
A new dry lure and trap are available from Russell IPM for monitoring spotted wing drosophila
In field trials the dry lure attracted more
SWD and lasted longer than a vinegar-
based dry lure.
Prolonged release of volatiles from the
Russell IPM dry lure, XlureSWD, in a wind
tunnel (20-22°C, 4 m.p.h.). Data from
University of Greenwich.
Russell IPM Suzukii traps can be used
with wet or dry lures
In field trials (December 2018), Russell IPM Suzukii traps caught the same
number of
Trap placement – Number of traps to be used
➢ Before fruiting, place traps at 2 metre intervals around the perimeter of the crop to reduce crop invasion from woodland and overwintering sites (80-100 Suzukii traps per ha).
➢ Once SWD are in a crop, use 1-2 Suzukii traps per 1000 m2 for monitoring pest levels.
➢ In cherry and stone fruit, position the traps about 10 meters inside the perimeter from early leaf stage. For soft fruit place traps in the crop once the fruit starts to swell.
Conclusion
1. Ultimately, these studies show clearly the efficacy of semiochemical male and female A&K systems.
2. In conjunction with beneficial fungi as a successful control measure against fruit fly affecting a range of fruit and vegetables.
3. Fruit fly IPM program opening new export markets and bringing about substantial economic and environmental benefits.
4. This system has been tested in following countries and similar level of protection was achieved:
➢ Asia: Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Vietnam.
➢ Africa: Tanzania, Kenya, Zanzibar, Ghana, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt.
➢ Middle East: Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq
Thanks for your attention