CRB-Funded Research Report
Research Project Progress Report
Improving trapping systems for
early detection and eradication of
fruit flies in California
Roger I. Vargas, David Haviland, Ben Faber, John Kabashima, Beth Grafton-Cardwell and Joseph G. Morse
Introduction
True fruit flies (Diptera: Tephri-
tidae) include some of the most eco-
nomically important pests attacking
soft fruits worldwide, including cit-
rus. From an economic perspective,
they 1) inflict extensive direct dam-
age to fruits and fleshy vegetables,
2) cause quarantine restrictions on
infested areas, 3) require that com-
mercial fruits undergo protective
and postharvest treatment prior to
export, and 4) provide a source for
their introduction into other parts
of the world when established in a
country.
Some of the most notorious
members of the family Tephritidae
are the Mediterranean fruit fly,
Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann)
(Fig. 1), oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera
dorsalis (Hendel) (Fig. 2) and its
relatives, Queensland fruit fly, B.
tryoni (Froggatt), peach fruit fly, B.
zonata (Saunders), and melon fly,
B. cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Fig. 3).
The recent alarming spread of fruit
flies worldwide [e. g., B. invadens
Drew, Tsutsura, and White) into
Africa and carambola fruit fly, B.
carambolae Drew and Hancock,
into South America] can be attrib-
uted to increased: 1) production of
fruits and vegetables worldwide, 2)
global trade of fruits, vegetables and
plants between countries, 3) cross-
border movement of people and
their possessions between nearby
countries, and 4) air travel with
baggage containing infested fruits.
The introduction of B. invadens into
Africa has been particularly trou-
28 Citrograph Summer 2013
Fig 1. Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis
capitata.
Fig. 2. Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis.
Fig 3. Melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae.
bling. Discovered in 2003, it quickly
spread from the east to west Africa,
infesting over 10 countries and even
displacing many of the Ceratitis spp
native to the continent.
The continued threat of fruit fly
establishment in the United States
has resulted in large survey and de-
tection programs in California and
Florida. Early detection methods
for accidental introductions of fruit
flies involve deployment of large
numbers of traps baited with highly
attractive male specific lures methyl
eugenol (ME; 4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxy-
benzene-carboxylate), trimedlure
(TML: tert-butyl 4- and 5-chloro-
cis- and trans-2-methylcyclohexane-
1-carboxylate), and cue-lure [C-L;
4-(p-acetoxyphenyl)-2-butanone],
to detect oriental fruit fly, Medi-
terranean fruit fly, and melon fly
(and their relatives), respectively.
Eradication treatments against ex-
otic fruit flies that are accidentally
introduced from various parts of the
world into California are very costly.
For example, due to continuous in-
troductions, current annual costs to
exclude Mediterranean fruit fly from
California total over $15 million.
Annual introductions of Bactrocera
spp. often result in temporary trade
restrictions and associated areawide
eradication treatments, lasting up
to nine months before movement
of agricultural commodities can
resume without postharvest treat-
ments (http://www.cdfa.ca.gov).
The California Department of
Food and Agriculture (CDFA) di-
rects continuous programs to detect
and eradicate invasive Bactrocera fruit
flies. From 1960 to 2012, nine different
Bactrocera species have been detected,
with Oriental fruit fly detected most
frequently (126 times). There have
been 140 eradication programs with 25
quarantines. Most of these programs
have occurred in southern California
where the usual number of detection
traps deployed is five Jackson traps (JT)
(TML, ME, and C-L) and five McPhail
traps (MPT) (Torula Yeast Solution)
per mi2 (2.59 km2). Currently, a sepa-
rate Jackson trap is deployed for TML,
ME, and C-L. Total number of sites in
operation is approximately 25,000 for
the Los Angeles area and over 30,000
for the entire state.
Current methods involve trapping
systems used in association with liquid
insecticide formulations such as naled
(Dimethyl 1,2-dibromo-2,2-dichloroeth-
yl phosphate) which pose environmental
and worker safety concerns. Through
the Hawaii Area-Wide Pest Manage-
ment program (AWPM), solid single
and double lure insecticidal wafers and
solid lure plugs and cones were identi-
fied as promising substitutes for traps
baited with liquid ME or CL and naled.
CITRUS – AVOCADOS – OLIVES
30 Citrograph Summer 2013
Fig. 4. This is a TMR dispenser in a
Jackson trap.
Results from recent studies provide
promising evidence for eliminating the
use of hard to handle liquid lures and
hazardous organophosphate insecticides
by consolidating three lures into one
solid single wafer with an insecticide
(Fig. 4). Besides the environmental
benefits, the possibility of consolidating
detection traps would reduce labor costs
associated with deployment of numer-
ous traps, which is the biggest expense
of large survey programs.
The overall objective of this Citrus
Research Board-funded study is to eval-
uate and develop a convenient, effective
and safer means to use male lures and
insecticides for improved detection and
potentially improved male annihilation
of invasive fruit flies. Incorporating a
single multi-lure dispenser to effectively
detect or suppress multiple fruit fly spe-
Table 1. Weekly male melon fly captures
(mean ± sem) in Jackson traps with
two lure dispensers hung in trees at six
orchards (eight sites), near Kona, HI, 13
December 2011-7 February 2012.
Wk Mallet TMR C-L liquid (6ml)
with naled (5%)
on wick
1 8.4 ± 2.6 17.4 ± 5.3
2 10.2 ± 3.0 10.3 ± 3.4
3 8.3 ± 2.1 10.7 ± 3.5
4 9.7 ± 3.8 9.1 ± 3.5
5 11.4 ± 3.5 10.8 ± 3.8
6 15.4 ± 1.2 7.9 ± 2.2
7 7.8 ± 2.6 4.0 ± 0.8
8 2.1 ± 0.6 3.4 ± 1.0
Grand mean
± sem 10.7 ± 1.4a 10.9 ± 1.5a
Mean number of flies captured per treatment over
time is not significantly different at the P = 0.05 level,
Proc GLM (SAS 2009) (Treatment: F = 0.11; df = 1,
254; P = 0.743).
cies in large trapping programs could
drastically reduce costs associated with
labor and materials while improving
safety and convenience from a worker’s
standpoint. Likewise when a detection
occurs, high densities of traps are placed
around the discovery site, not only serv-
ing for delineation of the find, but more
importantly as a mass trapping eradica-
tion technique often referred to as the
male annihilation technique (MAT).
Evaluations are being conducted
through the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and Pacific Basin
Agricultural Research Center (PBARC)
in Hilo, HI, in cooperation with the
University of California and Farma Tech
International (North Bend, WA). Two
bioassay study sites were selected in Ha-
waii because of the combined presence
of oriental, Mediterranean, and melon
flies. Sites on the leeward side of Hawaii
Island involved six separate avocado or-
chards (between 19°11’45” N, 155°51’59”
W and 19°32’3” N, 155°55’23”W, at an
average elevation of 466 m) and sites on
Kauai Island were in a large (ca. 1,400
ha) commercial coffee [Coffea arabica
L. cv. Arabica (Rubiaceae)] plantation
in Numila (21°54’36” N, 159°32’54” W,
at an average elevation of 125 m).
Experiment 1: Evaluation of Stan-
dard Individual Jackson Traps against
Triple Lure Jackson Trap on Hawaii
Table 2. Weekly male oriental fruit fly
captures (mean ± sem) in Jackson traps
with two lure dispensers hung in trees
at six orchards (eight sites), near Kona,
HI, 13 December 2011-7 February 2012.
Wk Mallet TMR Liquid ME (6ml)
with naled (1%)
on wick
1 55.5 ± 22.9 59.3 ± 20.3
2 62.9 ± 27.6 52.5 ± 18.5
3 54.1 ± 18.2 65.7 ± 29.9
4 45.1 ± 15.8 57.5 ± 23.1
5 67.8 ± 39.0 79.7 ± 45.5
6 76.3 ± 47.0 78.4 ± 48.3
7 13.9 ± 1.7 13.9 ± 2.5
8 8.5 ± 2.6 7.3 ± 1.9
Grand mean
±sem 55.2 ± 9.5a 61.4 ± 10.1a
Mean number of flies captured per treatment over
time is not significantly different at the P = 0.05 level,
Proc GLM (SAS 2009) (Treatment: F = 0.20; df = 2,
254; P = 0.658).
Island. Studies were conducted from Biologicals) + insecticidal strip. These penser in Jackson Traps with Sticky
13 Dec 2011 – 7 Feb 2012 in the Kona treatments represented current solid Inserts. Captures of melon fly in Jackson
area of Hawaii Island (during coffee lures identified through the Hawaii Fruit traps with TMR wafers were not sig-
and avocado season). Treatments were Fly Area-Wide program with potential nificantly different (P > 0.05) than those
placed inside Jackson traps with a sticky for MAT applications. Five replicates with liquid C-L (Table 1). Captures of
insert as follows: 1) Mallet TMR Trap, (five blocks with five treatments each) oriental fruit fly in Jackson traps with
2) ME solution (6ml) with 1% (AI) were conducted. TMR wafers were not significantly dif-
naled on a cotton wick, 3) C-L solution ferent (P > 0.05) than those with liquid
(6 ml) with 5% (AI) naled on a cotton Results ME (Table 2). In initial trials, captures
wick, and 4) 2g TML plug. Treatments Experiment 1: Evaluation of Solid of Mediterranean fruit fly in Jackson
2, 3 and 4 represent the standard treat- Cones and Plugs with Insecticidal Strip, traps with Mallet TMR wafers were not
ments currently used in survey arrays Liquid Lure and Insecticide Solution, significantly different (P > 0.05) than
in California for detection of ME, C-L and Triple Lure and Insecticide Dis- those with the TML plugs (Table 3). In
and TML responding flies, respectively.
Treatments were weathered in place and
traps were serviced every seven days for
eight consecutive weeks with a total of Uniquely effective products
eight replicates (eight blocks) with four
treatments each.
for controlling major pests in
Experiment 2: Male Annihilation
citrus with minimal disruption
Evaluations of Fresh Mallet TMR and to IPM programs.
Mallet CMR at Kauai Coffee Plantation.
Studies were conducted from 19 Nov -
26 Nov 2010 (during coffee harvest when
Mediterranean fruit fly numbers were
highest). Treatments were placed in
AWPM traps as follows: 1) Mallet TMR
(23% ME, 15.9% TML, 15.9% RK, 3.6%
DDVP), 2) Mallet CMR (29.9% ME,
4.7% benzyl acetate, 11.7% RK, 12.6%
ceralure, 2.8% DDVP), 3) 10g ME cone
(Scentry Biologicals) + insecticidal strip
(Hercon Vaportape II, DDVP), 4) 2g Citricola Scale
C-L plug (Scentry Biologicals) + insec- Cottony Cushion Scale
ticidal strip and 5) 2g TML plug (Scentry
California Red Scale
Table 3. Weekly male Mediterranean fruit
fly captures (mean ± sem) in Jackson traps
with two lure dispensers hung in trees at
six orchards (eight sites), near Kona, HI, 13
December 2011-7 February 2012.
Wk Mallet TMR TML plug (2g)
w/ DDVP strip
1 9.4 ± 5.9 16.5 ± 10.1 Citrus Red Mite
2 8.2 ± 6.8 8.4 ± 5.9
Two-spotted Spider Mite
3 23.4 ± 18.8 25.6 ± 21.6
4 32.5 ± 20.5 16.5 ± 10.2
Bud Mite
5 67.6 ± 47.0 53.9 ± 41.1
6 40.8 ± 27.5 30.6 ± 20.7 Contact Your area Nichino America sales
representative to learn more.
7 37.4 ± 32.6 11.5 ± 7.9
8 27.5 ± 22.1 10.0 ± 5.5
Grand mean
± sem 28.9 ± 8.1a 22.7 ± 6.8a ©2012. Nichino America, Inc. All rights reserved. APPLAUD® and FujiMite® are
trademarks of Nichino America, Inc. Farm Safely. Always read and follow label
Mean number of flies captured per treatment over directions. 888-740-7700 www.nichino.net
time is not significantly different at the P = 0.05 level,
Proc GLM (SAS 2009) (Treatment: F = 0.18; df = 1,
254; P = 0.6684).

Summer 2013 Citrograph 31

summary, there were few differences for
all three groups on the basis of attraction
and capture with the TMR wafer and the
current standard traps used in California.
Experiment 2: Male Annihilation
Evaluations of Fresh Mallet TMR and
Mallet CMR at Kauai Coffee Planta-
tion. Comparison of Mallet TMR and
Mallet CMR for captures of oriental
fruit fly, Mediterranean fruit fly, and
melon fly were not significantly differ-
ent (P > 0.05). As a result, Mallet CMR
wafers were not used in subsequent ex-
periments due to the higher production
costs associated with producing ceralure
when compared to TML. Mallet TMR
and Mallet CMR performed equally as
well or better than the solid lure cones
or plugs with DDVP strips. ME and C-L
are commonly used in male annihilation
eradication programs. Of particular
interest based on these results would
be the application of TML to areawide
management of Mediterranean fruit fly.
Discussion
Solid Mallet TMR (trimedlure
[TML], methyl eugenol [ME], raspberry
ketone [RK]) wafers and Mallet CMR
(ceralure, ME, RK, benzyl acetate) wa-
fers impregnated with DDVP insecticide
were evaluated in traps as potential

PACIFIC DISTRIBUTING, INC

Distributor for
Orchard-Rite®
wind machines for
frost protection &
Tropic Breeze®
original parts

Sales
Service
New
Used
Portable
Stationary

24 Hour
Emergency
Service
Randy Quenzer, Sales
559-805-8254
559-564-3114 randyquenzer@pdi-wind.com
Woodlake, CA Jeff Thorning, Sales
559-972-9937
www.orchard-rite.com jeffthorning@pdi-wind.com

32 Citrograph Summer 2013

detection and male annihilation devices.
Comparisons were made with 1) liquid
lure and insecticide formulations, 2)
solid cones and plugs with an insecticidal
strip, and 3) solid single and double lure
wafers impregnated with DDVP for cap-
tures of Mediterranean fruit fly, oriental
fruit fly and melon fly in Hawaii. Jackson
and AWPM bucket traps were tested in
avocado orchards near Kona, HI (low to
moderate population density) and in a
coffee plantation near Eleele, HI (high
density population), respectively.
In the detection trials near Kona,
HI, captures of Mediterranean fruit fly,
oriental fruit fly, and melon fly with Mal-
let TMR wafers were equal to those for
the standard TML, ME, and C-L traps
used in California and Florida detec-
tion arrays.
Fig. 5 .Weathering sites are located in Lindcove, Bakersfield, Ventura, Riverside and Costa Mesa, California.
In the male annihilation trials at
Eleele, capture of all three species with
Mallet TMR were not significantly
different from Mallet CMR (P>0.05);
therefore, subsequent experiments did
not include Mallet CMR due to higher
production costs. In these trials, captures
in bucket traps with Mallet TMR wafers
were equal to any other solid lure (single
or double) except the Mallet ME wafer.
Results of the Kauai studies also sug-
gest potential suppression applications
with TML and ceralure with average
captures of over 2,000 Mediterranean
fruit flies per trap per day. In summary,
a solid Mallet TMR wafer is more con-
venient to handle, safer and may be used
in place of several individual lure and
trap systems. Further benefits include
potentially reducing costs of large sur-
vey and detection programs in Florida
and California, and male annihilation
programs in Hawaii and California.
Trials of the new TMR wafers have
now moved to evaluations in typical cit-
rus growing areas of California. Mallet
TMR dispensers are being weathered
inside Jackson traps in citrus trees in
Tulare, Ventura, Riverside, Kern, and
Orange Counties of California (Fig. 5).
Two series of trials are being conducted
in conditions representative of summer
(August-September) and winter (Jan-
uary-March) conditions in California.
Each week, weathered wafers are
sent to Kauai or Hawaii Island, HI
(USDA-ARS-PBARC) for fruit fly
bioassays and to Farma Tech Interna-
tional, North Bend, Washington, for
chemical analysis using conventional
Summer 2013 Citrograph 33

To optimize fertigation
practices, it is essential that
irrigation is applied and
fertilizers injected at the
optimal concentration, place,
and time to ensure that
deposition patterns coincide
with maximal root uptake.
34 Citrograph Summer 2013
gas liquid chromatography methods.
In summary, solid wafers are safer
and more convenient to handle and may
be used in place of several individual
lure and trap systems, potentially reduc-
ing costs of large survey and detection
programs in California and Florida.
Results of our recent research sup-
port three possible applications: 1) three
individual traps with three solid wafers
(TML, Mallet ME, and Mallet RK), 2)
two individual traps with two solid wa-
fers (TML and MR), or 3) one trap (Mal-
let TMR). The Farma Tech Mallet TMR
wafers hold the promise of being used in
a single trap in place of three traps for
TML, ME and C-L/RK detection traps.
Further testing needs to be conducted
under California weather conditions,
and cost-benefit analyses needs to be
done on Mallet TMR versus standard
trapping systems.
Further reading
[CDFA] California Department
of Food and Agriculture. 2010. Insect
trapping guide, 12th ed. Sacramento, CA.
[FDACS] Florida Department of
Agriculture and Consumer Services.
2004. Florida fruit fly detection manual.
Division of Plant Industry, FDACS,
Gainesville, FL.
Vargas, R. I., N. Miller, and J. D.
Stark. 2003. Field trials of spinosad
as a replacement for naled, ddvp, and
malathion in methyl eugenol and cue-
lure bucket traps to attract and kill
male oriental fruit flies and melon flies
(Diptera: Tephritidae). Hawaii. J. Econ.
Entomol. 96: 1780-1785.
Vargas, R.I., R.F.L. Mau, J.D. Stark,
J.C. Pinero, L. Leblanc, and S.K. Souder.
2010. Evaluation of methyl eugenol and
cue-lure traps with solid lure and insec-
ticide dispensers for fruit fly monitoring
and male annihilation in the Hawaii area
wide pest management program. J. Econ.
Entomol. 103: 409-415.
Vargas, R. I., R. F. L. Mau, E. B.
Jang, and L. Wong. 2010. Area-Wide
Fruit Fly Integrated Pest Management
Program: A Model System. pp-171-177,
In: Editors: B. Sabater-Munoz, V. Na-
varro Llopis and A. Urvaneja Garcia,
Proceedings of the 8th International
Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic
Importance. Laimprenta CG, Valencia,
Spain, 415 pp.
Vargas, R.I., S.K. Souder, B. Mackey,
P.J. Cook, J.G. Morse, and J.D. Stark.
2012. Field trials of solid triple lure
(trimedlure, methyl eugenol, raspberry
ketone, and DDVP) dispensers for
detection and male annihilation of
Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), Bactro-
cera dorsalis (Hendel) and Bactrocera
cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Teph-
ritidae) in Hawaii. J. Econ. Entomol.
105: 1557-1565.
Vargas R.I., L. Leblanc, J. C. Piñero
and K. Hoffman. 2013. Male Annihila-
tion. Editors: Shelly, T., Epsky, N. Jang,
E.B., Reyes-Flores, J. and Vargas, R.I.
Trapping Tephritid Fruit Flies: Lures,
Area-Wide Programs, and Trade Im-
plications. Springer Press. (In Review).
Acknowledgments:
We thank Steven Souder, Russell
Ijima, Yu Nakane, Dominique Easter-
Green, and Jacqueline De La Garza
(Pacific Basin Agricultural Research
Center, USDA-ARS, Hilo, HI) for as-
sistance in summarizing and collecting
field data. We also thank Greg Williams
for allowing access to the Kauai Coffee
Plantation, Ken Love for coordinating
sites on Hawaii Island, and research
support from Marc Meisner. Finally, we
thank the California Citrus Research
Board and IR4 for financial support.
Roger Vargas, Ph.D., is a Research
Entomologist at the U.S. Pacific Basin
Agricultural Research Center in Hilo,
Hawaii. David Haviland is the Ento-
mology and Pest Management Farm
Advisor for UC Cooperative Extension
in Kern County. Ben Faber, Ph.D., is
the Farm Advisor for UC Cooperative
Extension in Ventura County. John Ka-
bashima, Ph.D., is the Environmental
Horticulture Advisor for UC Coop-
erative Extension in Orange County.
Beth Grafton-Cardwell, Ph.D., is an
Extension Specialist and Research En-
tomologist, and Joseph Morse, Ph.D.,
is a Professor of Entomology. Both are
members of the Department of Ento-
mology, UC Riverside.
CRB funded project reference num-
ber 5500-193. l
THE ANSWER
(From Page 5, Do You Know…?)
The custom of serving a slice of lemon
with fish dates back to the Middle Ages.
It was believed that if a person acciden-
tally swallowed a fish bone, the lemon
juice would dissolve it.