Host plants of the carambola fruit fly, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock (Diptera: Tephritidae), in Suriname, South America

Hospedeiros da mosca-da-carambola, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock (Diptera: Tephritidae), no Suriname, América do Sul

ECOLOGY, BEHAVIOR AND BIONOMICS

Host plants of the carambola fruit fly, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock (Diptera: Tephritidae), in Suriname, South America

Hospedeiros da mosca-da-carambola, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock (Diptera: Tephritidae), no Suriname, América do Sul

Alies van Sauers-Muller

Carambola Fruit Fly Program, Agricultural Experiment Station, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Paramaribo, Suriname

ABSTRACT

Fruits were collected over a 12-year period to determine the host status for the Carambola fruit fly, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock, and other tephritid species in Suriname, South America. Over 11,000 fruit samples were collected from many locations and the total of 20 fruit species were recorded as host, ranging in infestation from heavy to occasional. Over 650 samples of 188 fruit species, including many wild species, were collected and no fruit flies were reared.

This work, which started specifically to obtain information on the Carambola fruit fly, resulted also in detailed information regarding the importance, distribution and host preferences of several Anastrepha species, and the status of fruit fly parasitoids.

Key words: Fruit survey, Anastrepha, infestation, parasitoid, host, preference

RESUMO

Durante um periodo de 12 anos foram coletados frutos para determinar as plantas hospedeiras da mosca-da-carambola, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock, e outras espécies de tefrítidos que ocorrem no Suriname, América do Sul. Mais de 11.000 amostras de frutos foram coletadas de diversas localidades e somaram o total de 20 espécies de frutos tidos como hospedeiros, classificados como infestação entre forte e até ocasional. Mais de 650 amostras de 188 espécies de frutos, incluindo várias espécies selvagens, foram coletadas porém não foram encontradas as moscas nas frutas. Este trabalho, que começou especificamente para obter informações sobre a mosca-da-carambola, resultou também em informações sobre a importância, distribuição e preferência de diferentes espécies de Anastrepha para as plantas hospedeiras e a importância de parasitóides de moscas-das-frutas.

Palavras-chave: Levantamento, hospedeiro, Anastrepha, infestação, parasitóide, preferência

The Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel as it was known up to a decade ago - now the Bactrocera dorsalis complex - had a wide variety of fruits listed as hosts throughout Asia from the Philippines to India and Indonesia when it was originally described. The review of the taxonomic status of this complex resulted in over 52 species (Drew & Hancock 1994) and raised questions on the host status of each 'new' species. Literature referring to host plants of the Oriental fruit fly previous to 1994 is actually referring to fruit flies belonging to what is now known as the OFF complex. Thus no exact information regarding host plants for each fly species is available, as several species are known to occur within a country or region. The distribution of Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock, the Carambola fruit fly (CFF) - one of the Oriental fruit fly complex species - is Indonesia, Malaysia and southern Thailand. As an invading species it is found in the northern part of South America: Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana and northern Brazil (White et al., 1992).

Fruit production in Suriname is not yet developed; most fruit trees are found in domestic backyards. Citrus orchards are common (ca 1735 ha), but orchards are limited for fruits as guava (Psidium guajava) (3 ha), Malay apple (Syzygium malaccense) (app. 0.5 ha), carambola (Averrhoa carambola) (app. 3 ha) and West Indian Cherry (Malpighia punicifolia) (15 ha). The total acreage for mango (Mangifera indica) is estimated to be around 157 ha.

CFF has been in Suriname since at least 1975 (van Sauers-Muller 1991). In 1975, several specimens were reared from fruits and stored unidentified in the insect collection of the Agricultural Experiment Station. Flies were sent for identification to the Smithsonian after new fruit collections showed the presence of this exotic fruit fly in 1986. After its detection in 1986, a host and distribution survey began by collecting wild and cultivated fruits from many locations throughout the country.

Several control options for CFF were considered, but the only relevant one appeared to be an eradication programme. The importance of an eradication program for CFF lies not only within future expansion of the fruit sector of Suriname, but also in the threat which the CFF poses upon expanding its range to the tropical areas of South and Central America and the south of the United States. In 1990 the first control actions were applied. In 1996, this initiative was continued on a larger scale with the Regional Program for eradication of the CFF.

The control program consisted of a detection phase, in which the presence or absence of CFF in a certain area was confirmed using Jackson and McPhail traps baited respectively with methyl-eugenol and food lure, and by the collection of fruits. In the control phase, the Male Annihilation Technique was applied by using fiberboard blocks drenched in methyl-eugenol and malathion.

This paper reports the results of the fruit collection, ranking the importance of the different fruit species as host for CFF and the importance of natural enemies attacking CFF.

Materials and Methods

From August 1986 to July 2002, fruit samples were collected in the field to identify and quantify the hosts of CFF and its distribution. The samples were taken before, during and after control techniques were applied. Collections were made in most of the human inhabited areas in Suriname and partly in forested areas. Samples (ranging from 1 to over 100 fruits) were collected by gathering fruits either fallen recently on the ground or picked from the trees. The fruits were brought to the laboratory in buckets and trays with sawdust.

Each fruit sample was identified to plant species, and their weight, number of fruits and location were recorded. Fruits were identified, if not commonly known, to family and species using the information in Ostendorf (1962), Wessels Boer et al. (1976), Van Roosmalen (1985), Hoyos (1994) and with the help of experts of the University of Suriname. After a maximum period of 10 days, samples and sawdust were checked for pupae and larvae, which were transferred to smaller jars for emergence. Fruit samples and jars with pupae were screened with cotton cloth, to prevent Drosophila from entering and fruit flies from escaping. Samples were discarded, sometimes after a second check, when no more larvae were found in the decomposing fruits or in the sawdust. Adults were identified to genus and either kept for further identification to species in the insect collection or used for training purposes. Numbers and species of emerged flies, and -if present- numbers of parasitoids, were recorded.

Results and Discussion

Table 1 presents a summary of the fruit species infested with fruit flies, the total number of collected samples of each species, number of fruits and their weight; number of samples infested with fruit flies and their parasitoids. Numbers of samples with no fruit flies were recorded and the frequency of non-infested of the total is given. The total number of pupae, emerged Anastrepha flies, Bactrocera flies and parasitoids is presented, as is the percentage of parasitism. A total of 10,183 samples from 46 plant species belonging to 21 families were collected from August 1986 to July 2002.

Tabela 2

Mixed populations of Anastrepha and Bactrocera have been found in several samples, and sometimes one fruit comprised more than one fruit fly species. From all collected samples, a total of 292 fruits were either collected or reared individually. In nine samples, a mixed population of Anastrepha and Bactrocera was reared from one fruit. These samples were found in seven different districts, and in the following fruit species: carambola, guava, West Indian cherry, starapple (Chrysophyllum cainito) L., grapefruit (Citrus paradisi)Macf.and sapodilla (Manilkara achras)(Mill.) Fosberg.

Wild and cultivated fruits from over 56 families and belonging to over 187 different species were collected and no fruit flies were reared from them. Locations of sampling and number of collections of all fruits are shown in Fig. 1.

Carambola, Averrhoa carambolae L., proved to be the major host plant, with 32% of the samples infested by CFF. The Curacao apple, Syzygium samarangense (Blume) Merr. & Perry, is second in this list (20.45%).

Surinam cherry (Eugenia uniflora L.), pommeroos (Syzygium jambos (L.) Alston), a wild cherry (Eugenia cf patrisii Vahl), mango (Mangifera indica L.), West Indian cherry (Malpighia punicifolia L.), moendoe (Garcinia dulcis (Roxb.) Kurz.), jujube (Zizyphus jujuba Mill.) and tropical almond (Terminalia catappa L.) all had infestation rates between 10-19 %. The number of samples collected from both Eugenia species, pommeroos and moendoe are very low, as these fruits are not common in Suriname. The wild cherry has been found only in the Para district, mainly in Amerindian communities.

Mango, West Indian cherry, jujube and tropical almond were abundant. Different varieties of mango, guava and carambola were infested differently. Sweet varieties of the carambola were often infested, while sour varieties, even in the immediate surroundings, were free of CFF. Several local varieties of mango, Tité and Cayenne, were found more often infested than other varieties by as well CFF as the West Indian fruit fly (Anastrepha obliqua)Macquart. CFF also occurs in some other mango 'varieties', however due to hybridization, description of these mango varieties is difficult.

Several non-described guava varieties also occur, which differ in shape and color of their flesh. One large-sized variety (propagated by seed, local variety) was observed to be more susceptible to CFF infestations, while in the other varieties the local guava fruit fly (Anastrepha striata)Schiner dominated.

Three samples of hog plum (Spondias mombin L.) were found infested with CFF, in one case combined with Anastrepha, being two samples from Apura (Sipaliwini), in 1995. At that time, the CFF population in the village was high. The third sample was collected in 1997 in Commewijne, also in an area with a high CFF population. The total number of CFF from these three samples was 10. Due to the fact that hog plum is a common, widespread tree in Suriname, adaptation of CFF to this native host could have implications on the progress of the eradication project. Therefore more emphasis was placed on sampling hog plum fruits, as potential occasional native host for CFF.

Citrus species were not observed as an important host. The collections made for grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf., which were infested with CFF and Anastrepha, all came from a single tree.

Hosts found in SE Asia, but not in Suriname are: Annona montana Macf. (2) and A. muricata L.; Thevetia peruviana (Pers.) K. Schum (1), Persea americana Mill. (2), Artocarpus altilis (communis) (Park.) Fosberg (1) and A. heterophyllus Lam. (6), Averrhoa bilimbi L. (5), Punica granatum L. (1), Capsicum annuum L. (1) and Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. (1). It must be noted that the number of infested samples (in brackets) of these fruit species is low in most cases, and the number of samples collected in Suriname of these species is low. The following hosts were found only in Suriname and not in South East Asia: Anacardium occidentale L., Spondias cytherea Sonn., Spondias mombin L., Garcinia dulcis (Roxb.) Kurz, Malpighia punicifolia L., Eugenia cf. patrisii Vahl and Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck. Of these hosts, only the West Indian cherry is of importance as host, the other fruits were only found occasionally infested. Parasitoids were found in larvae reared from several fruit species (Table 1). The highest percentages of parasitism were observed in smaller sized fruits, most of these only infested with Anastrepha. There is no indication that parasites specifically attack CFF.

Acknowledgements

Mrs. Marga Werkhoven, Usha Raghoenandan and their team (all University of Suriname, National Herbarium) are kindly acknowledged for providing us with identifications of many of the wild fruits collected. The lab technicians of the Carambola fruit fly program are acknowledged for the many hours spent in checking all the samples and counting the numerous flies emerging.

Literature Cited

Received 07/VII/04. Accepted 27/XI/04.

• Allwood, A.J., A. Chinajariyawong, S. Kritsaneepaiboon, R.A.I. Drew, E.L. Hamacek, D.L. Hancock, C. Hengsawad, J.C. Jipanin, M. Jirasurat, C. Kong Krong, C.T.S. Leong & S. Vijaysegaran. 1999. Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bull. Zool., supplement n. 7: 1-92.
• Drew, R.A.I. & D.L. Hancock. 1994. The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bull. Entomol. Res., Suppl. 2, 68p.
• Hoyos, J.F. 1994. Frutales en Venezuela. Sociedad de Ciencias Naturales La Salle, Caracas, 381p.
• Ostendorf, F.W. 1962. Nuttige planten en sierplanten in Suriname. Bulletin n. 79, Landbouwproefstation in Suriname, 325p.
• Purseglove, J.W. 1968. Tropical crops: Dicotyledons. Longman, London, 719p.
• Roosmalen, M.G.M. van. 1985. Fruits of the Guianan Flora. Institute of Systematic Botany, Utrecht, 483p.
• Sauers-Muller, van A.E. 1991. An overview of the Carambola fruit fly Bactrocera species (Diptera: Tephritidae), found recently in Suriname. Fla. Entomol. 74: 432-440.
• Teunissen, P.A. 1982. Inventarisatie en kartering van de nuttige planten en sierplanten in de cultuurtuin te Paramaribo. Stichting Nationale Parken i.s.m. Instituut voor Opleiding van Leraren, Paramaribo, 24p.
• Wessels Boer, J., W.H.A. Hekking & J.P. Schultz. 1976. Fa joe kan tak' mi no moi? Natuurgids Serie B. n. 4. Stinasu, 293p.
• White, I.M. & M.M. Elson-Harris. 1992. Fruit flies of economic significance: Their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, 601p.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  14 July 2005
• Date of issue
  Apr 2005

History

• Accepted
  27 Nov 2004
• Received
  07 July 2004