Pak. Entomol. Vol. 29, No.

2, 2007 FIELD TEST OF THE BAIT SPRAY ON PERIPHERY OF HOST PLANTS FOR THE CONTROL OF THE FRUIT FLY, MYIOPARDALIS PARDALINA BIGOT (TEPHRITIDAE: DIPTERA) Khalid Abdullah, Abdul Latif, Said Mir Khan* and Mohammad Akram Khan
Agricultural Research Institute, Dera Ismail Khan 29020 NWFP, Pakistan *Deptt. of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, NWFP, Pakistan

ABSTRACT Balochistan fruit fly (Myiopardalis pardalina Bigot [Diptera: Tephritidae]) is one of the major pests of muskmelon in torrent spate areas of Baluchistan and North Western Frontier Province (N.W.F.P.), Pakistan. Field study was carried out to evaluate efficacy of the bait and endosulfan applied along the periphery of host, and non-host vegetation (alone and in combination). Treatments were administered twice at 10 days interval, starting from fruit-setting stage. A significant reduction in fruit infestation was shown by all the treatments when compared with untreated check. However, non-significant difference was found within treatments applied. The lowest % fruit infestation (1.65) and highest yield of 212 kg/sample were recorded in plots treated with endosulfan. Treatment where intermittent bait was applied on surrounding vegetation + periphery of host fields had 2.54% fruit infestation and 199 kg/sample yield as compared to untreated check (25.63 % infestation and 31.45 kg/sample). Bait of protein hydrolysate has been used within the INTRODUCTION host field for successful control of several species of tephritid flies in various parts of the world (Nishida Muskmelon (Cucumis melo; Cucurbitaceae) is an et al., 1957, Latif et al., 1987, McQuate 1999, important summer cash crop grown mostly under Vargas et al., 2001). Prokopy et al., 2003 observed rainfed or torrent spate area, (tropical and adults wandering around the field for seeking shelter subtropical plains) of Pakistan. In southern districts and food etc. and reported a good control of fruit of North West Frontier Province (NWFP) of flies when vegetation around the field was sprayed Pakistan, more than 90% of the crop is cultivated with insecticides. Hendrichs and Prokopy (1994) under torrent spate (rodkohi belt) conditions. The stated that the removal of weeds around the field melon growers are not getting potential yield due to helps in minimizing chances of adult flies to get fruit infestation by Balochistan fruit fly; refuge and food in the form of nectar. Prokopy et al. Myiopardalis pardalina Bigot. The extent of (2003) in their studies found significant reduction of damage ranges from 15 to 60% and in epidemic the amount of synthetic insecticide used in the cover form the whole crop is destroyed (Latif et al., 1987; spray by simply reducing the spray area (border Khan et al., 1992). area) in a field. However, there is still opportunity to The M. pardalina is monophagous in behavior and reduce this amount of toxicant further to fractions by depends upon muskmelon for the extension of its applying it with food bait and manipulating fruit future generations. Gravid female deposits eggs flys foraging and sheltering behavior. beneath the rind of melon fruit and maggots feed on Present studies were undertaken with objective to the fruit flesh. Full grown larvae bore out and devise such a control technique that is cost effective usually pupate in the soil, ultimately these damaged and least hazardous to host ecosystem. In this study fruits rot due to the secondary (bacterial and fungal) results of bait spray versus endosulfan applied only infection and become unfit for human consumption along the border area of host field and the (Talhuk, 1969; Khan, 1987). The pupae of 2nd surrounding vegetation for the management of generation undergo diapause for about 9 months; balouchistan fruit fly M. pardalina which has never July to March. After eclosion, the adult flies are attempted before as revealed in the available confined around the vegetation of host fields for literature are presented. The studies are based on the foraging, resting, mating and sheltering. At the fruit inference that flies spend most of the time at dark on setting stage, the gravid female visits the host field non-host plants in the vicinity of cultivated hosts. and oviposits in fruit, nearer to surrounding vegetation (Latif, 2004).

91

Pak. Entomol. Vol. 29, No.2, 2007 MATERIALS AND METHODS The experiment was carried out in 2005 during melon growing season (April-June) at farmers field in torrent spate, rodkohi belt of Kulachi, Dera Ismail Khan. Seeds of local variety Bukhara were sown by bullock driven manual drill maintaining 1m inter line distance. The field selected for the treatments were uniform in age and stand, had a history of fruit fly infestation and never been exposed to pesticides. Layout of the trial was according to randomized complete block design with 5 treatments each replicated 3 times. Treatment plots in each replication were kept independent, at least half km apart and with plot size of not less than 2 acres. Treatments were as follow: 1. Spray of endosulfan around + periphery (5 meter area of the melon [host] field from the margins of each side) of melon field 2. Bait application on flora around the melon field. 3. Bait application on around + periphery of melon field 4. Untreated Check. Synthetic insecticide used was Thiodan (endosulfan) 35 EC (Bayer DAS Pvt. (Pak) Ltd.) with dosage @ 3ml/L water. Bait solution consisted of Protein hydrolysate (Intentional Pheromones System Ltd., UK) mixed with Diptrex 80SP (Bayer DAS Pvt. (Pak) Ltd.) (a liter solution contained 30ml bait material + 3ml insecticide in 967ml water). Both treatments were administered on periphery (a 5-m strip of host crop from the outer edge), and in addition, all vegetation around the host field with in five meter area. Synthetic insecticide or bait was applied twice at 10 days interval starting at the fruit setting stage using knapsack sprayer. Bait was applied intermittently (one sq. m after every 5 m) twice at 10 days interval as per procedure adopted in other treatments. Data on fruit infestation were recorded twice at the time of fruit picking by randomly taking 80 fruits from the harvested lot. The criteria to affirm infested fruits were based on larval-exit hole on fruits. The fruits were declared infested which had 2 or more exit holes made by full-grown larvae. Fruits with one hole or which looked deformed (a probable sign of fruit fly infestation) were cut open to observe the larvae therein, or evidence of larval feeding was counted as infested. Yield data were recorded by weighing healthy fruits after exclusion of infested fruits from the sample of 80 fruits. The data were averaged and converted into percent fruit infestation. The mean infestation was subjected to test the significance of treatment by applying linear model (F-test) using MSTATC software (MStatC Inc., Michigan State University, MI, USA). Percent reduction in infestation as affected by treatments was calculated while treatment means comparison was figured out by applying LSD test at 5% level of significance. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS A critical look into the data (Table 1 & 2) revealed treatments affect, applied as cover spray of synthetic insecticide and bait of protein hydrolysate mixed with toxicant around and peripheral edges of the host field. All the treatments brought a significant decline in pest infestation and increased melon yield when compared to untreated check. The infestation in treated fields varied from 1.25 to 9.17% as against 24.17 to 27.08% in the control field during 1st and 2nd picking. When converted into percent reduction in infestation (Table 3), it ranged from 70.75 96.56% whereas these reductions in infestation resulted in yield increase of 106 to 253 kg respectively. However, the lowest fruit infestation was observed in plots treated with spray of insecticide (1.65%) and intermittent bait spray (2.54%) when applied on surrounding vegetation + periphery of host fields and with highest yield (212 kg. and 199 kg, respectively). Since no significant difference was found between insecticide and bait spray applied along the border area, therefore bait application of protein hydrolysate is preferably desired choice as it utilizes a fraction of toxicant on a few spots with least environmental pollution and cost effective in terms of resources and energy. The fruit produced through such management is also in compliance with the WTO regulations. There are several important examples of using a bait for the control of different species in different countries. Protein hydrolysate has been used to suppress the population of Dacus tyroni in Australia (Prokopy and Roitberg, 1984), mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, oriental fruit fly, B. dorsalis, and melon fruit fly, B. cucurbitae, in Hawaii (Harris et al., 1971; Broumas, et al., 2002), melon fruit fly, D. cucurbiate and Guava fruit fly, B. zonata in Pakistan (Latif et al., 1987; Abdullah et al., 2002). Present investigations

92

Pak. Entomol. Vol. 29, No.2, 2007 are quite in line with the finding of Prokopy et al. (2003) who applied a bait spray to border area of host plants and found effective for the control of B. cucurbitae in Hawaii. In concept, the proteinaceous substance should attract tephritid adults to bait sprays droplets, followed by ingestion of bait along with a toxic dose of insecticide. In principle, the attractiveness of bait spray droplets should permit a reduction in the proportion of crop or land area receiving a spray as well as a reduction in the amount of insecticide needed for the control compared with the blanket application of insecticide in conventional sprays. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS The study was based on the behavioral pattern of adults of Myiopardalis pardalina that is host specific and only lives on the muskmelon for the extension of future generations. During its active period as an adult, its diurnal activities are mostly confined around the host field. This behavior of the pest was exploited by applying control techniques along the surrounding flora to get cost effective and least hazardous ecosystem. In the light of the results, following recommendations are made: 1. Preferably intermittent bait spray of protein hydrolysate and/or cover spray of insecticides may be applied along the border area of host field and surrounding vegetations. 2. Sanitation and removal of weeds around the host field may be made to deprive flies of the food (nectar) and shelter and will help in reduction of adult population and fruit infestation.

Table 1. Mean Percent Fruit infestation (n = 80) as affected by treatments

Treatments Infestation 1st Picking Infestation 2nd Picking 1. Spray of endosulfan on flora around the melon field 7.92b 3.75b 2. Spray of endosulfan around + periphery of melon field 2.50b 0.83b 3. Bait application on flora around the melon field. 9.17b 2.92b 4. Bait application on around + periphery of melon field 3.83b 1.25b 5. Untreated check. 27.08a 24.17a 9.479 8.690 LSD Means in column not followed by the same letter are significantly different according to ANOVA and LSD test at P =0.05

Table 2. Yield of healthy fruits (kg) after exclusion of infested fruits from the sample (n-80)
Treatments Mean yield 1st Picking Mean yield 2nd Picking 1. Spray of endosulfan on flora around the melon field 66.0 bc 97.3 ab 2. Spray of endosulfan around + periphery of melon field 93.0 a 99.0 ab 3. Bait application on flora around the melon field. 54.3 c 78.6 b 4. Bait application on around + periphery of melon field 82.6 ab 104.3 a 5. Untreated check. 26.3 d 36.6 c 22.14 24.04 LSD Mean in column not followed by the same letter are significantly different according to ANOVA and LSD test at P = 0.05

Table 3. Mean reduction in fruit infestation (n = 80) as affected by treatments

Treatments 1. Spray of endosulfan on flora around the melon field 2. Spray of endosulfan around + periphery of melon field 3. Bait application on flora around the melon field. 4. Bait application on around + periphery of melon field Reduction in infestation 1st picking 70.75 90.76 66.13 85.85 Reduction in infestation 2nd picking 84.48 96.56 87.91 94.82

93

Pak. Entomol. Vol. 29, No.2, 2007 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors cordially acknowledge the financial support of Agricultural Linkages Program, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (ALP/PARC) and the cooperating farmers for the help in these studies. REFERENCES Abdullah, K., M. Akram and A. A. Alizai, 2002. Non-traditional control of fruit flies in guava orchards in D.I.Khan. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 17 (2): 195-96. Broumas, T., G. Haniotakis, C. Liaropoulos, T. Tomazau and N.Ragoussis, 2002. The efficacy of an improved form of the mass trapping method for the control of olive fruit fly Bactrocera olivae (Gmelin) (Dipt. Tephritidae) pilot scale feasibility studies. J. Appl. Ento., 126 (5): 217-222. Harris, E. J., D. L. Chambers, L. F. Steiner, D.C. Kamakahi and M. Komura, 1971. Mortality of tephritids attracted to guava foliage treated with either malathion or naled plus protein hydrolysate bait. J. Econ. Ento., 64: 12131216. Hendrichs, J. and R. J. Prokopy, 1994. Food foraging behavior of frugivorous fruit flies. In: Fruit flies and the Sterile Insect Technique, Calkins, C. O., W. KL Assen and P. Liedo (Eds.) CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida, USA. pp. 37-55 Khan, L., 1987. Bionomics and control of the melon fruit fly, Dacus cucurbiate. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. pp 239. Khan, L., C. Inayatullah and M. UI-Haq, 1992. Control of melon fruit fly Dacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Trypetidae ) on melon in Pakistan. Trop. Pest Manage., 38: 26-4. Latif, A., N.K. Marwat and N. Hussain, 1987. Suppression of population and infestation of Dacus sp. Fruit flies through the use of protein hydrolyasis. Sarhad J. Agric., 3 (4): 509-513. Latif, A., 2004. Integrated management of Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan. Ann. Rept., Agricultural Linkages Programme. Pak. Agri. Res. Counc., Islamabad. 51 pp. McQuate, G.T., R.T. Conningham, S.I. Peek, and P.H. Moore, 1999. Suppressing oriental fruit fly populations with phloxine B. protein bait sprays. Pest. Sci., 55: 547-576. Nishida, T., H.A. Bess and A. Ota, 1957. Comparative effectiveness of malathion and malathion yeast hydrolysate bait sprays for the control of melon fly. J. Econ. Ento., 50: 682-684. Prokopy, R.J. and B.D. Roitberg, 1984. Foraging behaviour of true fruit flies. Amer. Sci., 72: 41-49. Prokopy, R.J., N.W. Miller, J.C. Pinero, J.D. Barry, L.C. Tran, L. Oride and R.I. Vargas, 2003. Effectiveness of GF-120 fruit fly bait spray to border plants for the control of melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Ento., 96 (5): 1455-1493. Talhuk, A.M.S., 1969. Myiopardalis pardalina Bigot: Insect and mites injurious to crops om Middle Eastern countries. Verlag Paul Paregy. pp. 217-218 Vargas R.I., S.L. Peek, G.T. McQuate, C.G. Jackson, J.D. Stark and J.W. Armstrong, 2001. Protential for areawide integrated management of Mediterranean fruit fly with a braconid parasitoid and a novel bait spray. J. Econ. Ento., 94: 817-825.

94