1. SURVEY AND MONITORING OF FRUIT FLY
(DIPTERA:TEPRHITIDAE) IN MANDARIN
ORCHARDS OF JAJARKOT, NEPAL
Presenter
ARPAN PARAJULI
Agriculture and Forestry University
Rampur, Chitwan
2. I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Background information
• Citrus covers 28,406 ha with the production of 2,71,908Mt/ha in Nepal
(MOALD,2019)
• Among citrus crops mandarin orange occupies major portion of citrus growing
area followed by sweet orange and lime (Gupta, 2018).
• The total area, productive area, production and productivity of Mandarin in
Nepal is 27,951 ha, 17,220 ha, 1,17,381 mt and 10.3 mt/ha
respectively(MOALD, 2019).
• The productive area, production and yield of mandarin in Jajarkot is 610 ha, 164
ha, 1674 mt and 10.21 mt/ha respectively(MOALD, 2019)
• Mandarin production in Jajarkot contributes 0.014% to the national mandarin
production.
3. I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Background information
• Fruit flies is one of the largest and most diversified families of Diptera.
Tephritidae includes about 4000 species arranged in 500 genera(White et al.,
1992).
• It has been recognized as a serious pest of commercial mandarin and is
considered one of the major limiters of citrus production (Gautam, Singh, &
Kumar, 2015).
4. I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Problem statement
• Despite the well accepted value and importance of Mandarin production in terms
of income and climatic suitability, the production of Mandarin is still low in
Jajarkot (MOALD, 2019).
• Fruit drop at early stage due to insect infestation is the major problem of
mandarin production in Jajarkot.
• Among the different pest problem of Mandarin, fruit fly is found to be an
important pest causing damage to the fruits
• For 3-4 years fruit fly has been found to be problematic pest causing economic
loss of mandarin produced in Jajarkot.
• Farmers have been using different preventive measures like Bordeaux mixture,
pheromone traps and protein baits to protect their crops but in spite of all those
efforts, none of the measures have shown significant result for the solution of the
problem.
5. I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Rationale of study
• The species composition of fruit fly in mandarin orchards of Jajarkot are
still unknown
• Farmers mostly use cultural practices like destruction of fallen fruits for
the control of fruit fly but they lack the knowledge regarding the major
time of infestation and the species that affect the Mandarin crop.
• According to the report of ADO (2019) fruit fly is one of the major insect
pest affecting the mandarin crop and for the control of it, farmers are not
using proper trapping and management techniques.
• The documentation of different management practices used by farmers in
Jajarkot is
6. I
N
T
R
O
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
Objectives
Broad objective of this study was to identify the species of fruit fly, study
their occurrence in mandarin orchard and devise the management practices
applicable to the on-farm condition in general.
Specific Objectives
• To assess the awareness status of fruit fly among mandarin growers in Jajarkot
and find the factors affecting the awareness status.
• To document the different techniques of the management of fruit flies as
adopted by farmers and recommend for their further improvements
• To identify the species of fruit fly present in mandarin orchards of the district.
• To study the population dynamics of fruit fly in mandarin at different altitudes
of the district.
• To study population dynamics of fruit fly in mandarin in different time.
7. L
I
T
E
R
A
T
U
R
E
R
E
V
I
E
W
• Introduction to mandarin
• Fruit fly species and its distribution
• Quarantine fruit fly species
• Life cycle of fruit fly
• Fruit fly damage and crop losses
• Types of traps
• Monitoring of fruit fly using methyl eugenol and
protein bait
• Management practices for fruit fly
• Field characters of economically important fruit flies
8. M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
This study consists of two parts viz. farmer’s survey and monitoring
Farmer’s Survey
Figure 1. Site of study
Study site
command areas (2
municipalities and 1 Rural
municipality) of citrus zone
of Jajarkot district
• Kushe Rural municipality
• Bheri Municipality
• Nalgad municipality
9. Sample and sampling technique
• A sampling frame of mandarin growers whose orchards were at least five
years old were collected from Program Implementation Unit, Citrus and bee
zone, Jajarkot
• 60 farmers were randomly selected
• The sample size was determined using sample size calculator by Raosoft, Inc
incorporating a margin of error of 5 percent.
Data collection
• Primary data : Household survey, Key informant Survey (KIS), Focus Group
Discussion (FGD)
• Secondary data: published journals, research articles, proceedings of various
NGOs and INGOs, annual reports of District Agriculture Development Office
(DADO), Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, Central Bureau
of Statistics, Fruit Development Directorate, Food and Agriculture
Organization
M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
10. Data Analysis Technique
M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
• Collected data were coded and entered using SPSS version 26
and analysed using STATA version 17 and Microsoft excel
2016.
• Means, standard deviation, frequencies and percentage were
computed using descriptive statistics.
• Preferential ranking and indexing was carried out using five
point scaling techniques .Index was calculated using formula
11. M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
Iprob=
𝑆𝑖
𝑓𝑖
𝑁
Where,
Iprob = Index value for intensity of problem
∑ = Summation
Si = Scale value of ith intensity
fi = Frequency of ith response
N= total number of observation
• Factors affecting awareness status of fruit fly were studied
by using Binary Logistic Regression Model
Continued…..
12. M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
Logit(Y) = α+∑ β1X1 +∑β2X2 +∑βn Xn +εi…………………. (3)
Where, Y= dependent variable (awareness) with 1= aware and 0= otherwise
α = intercept
εi= error index
β1…… βn= coefficient of independent variables
X1……. Xn= the independent variables
P (p) = probability of being aware of fruit fly and its damage symptoms
1-p= probability that a farmer is not aware of fruit fly and its damage symptoms
ln= natural log
Model Specification
13. M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
Model Specification
Variable Type Description Value
Dependent variable
Awareness of fruit fly
and its damage
symptoms (Y)
Dummy Farmer is aware or unaware of fruit
fly and its damage symptoms
1if aware, 0 if
unaware
Independent variables
Age(X1) Continuous Age of the respondent Years
Education(X2) Continuous Education status of respondent Years
Household size(X3) Continuous Household size of respondent Persons
Farm size(X4) Continuous Total farm size of respondent Ropani
Experience of mandarin
farming(X5)
Continuous Experience of mandarin farming of
respondent
Years
Table 1 :Description of variables used in binary logit regression model
14. M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
Monitoring
Location Altitude(metres above
sea level)
Latitude Longitude
Location 1 1350 284425.562N 821131.181E
Location 2 1550 284317.757N 821114.965E
Location 3 1750 284744.194N 82101.495E
Site selection
Three mandarin orchards from Bheri Municipality and Kushe Rural Municipality
were selected
Installaion of traps
• Fruit fly male lures viz methyl eugenol and Cue lure and Great protein bait was
installed in three different trees of each mandarin orchard.
• Great protein biat [ protein hydrolysate (25%) + abamectin (0.1%) ] was kept in
Mcphail trap filling 1cm from the bottom, diluted with water such that 33ml
protein bait was mixed with 66 ml water.
Table 2 :Description of fruit fly monitoring locations of study
15. • Cue lure (1ml) and Methyl eugenol (1ml) were soaked in cotton and kept in their
respective steiner trap at the top and 1ml Malathion 50 EC soaked in cotton was
kept at the bottom of each steiner trap to knock-down the fruit flies.
• Traps were placed 1.5 m above the ground at least 50 metres apart. The lures were
changed at every 15 days interval for more effective luring capacity.
Counting of fruit fly
• The trapped fruit flies was counted at every 7 days interval.
• The trapped fruit flies was pinned for the species identification purpose
Identification of fruit fly
• Fruit flies’ morphological traits except setae locations on body were investigated in
each specimen to identify it to species level using hand lens was used to observe
the morphological traits on the body of a fruit fly, and the identified specimen was
photographed and displayed in the paper.
• Distinguishing morphological characters of adult fruit fly dealt in Singh (2015a)
and a diagnostic key to the pest species of fruit flies dealt in Singh (2015b) were
used to identify them.
M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
16. M
E
T
H
O
D
O
L
O
G
Y
Data recording parameters
The number of fruit flies trapped in each trap and the species of the fruit fly
trapped was recorded in every counting.
Data analysis
All the data of monitoring will be analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2016. The result will
be interpreted and presented on the graphs and tables wherever necessary
17. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 42 70
Female 18 30
Table 3 Distribution of gender of the respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Age category Frequency Standard Deviation Range
Economically active population (15-59) 58 (96.67)
8.15 33-77
Old (60 and above) 2(3.33)
Table 4. Distribution of age of the respondents
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Socio-economic and demographic profile of respondents
18. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Mean Standard deviation Range
Family size 6.27 2.29 4-16
Number of males 3.05 1.47 1-8
Number of females 3.32 1.53 1-8
Economically active members 1.63 0.76 1-4
Educated members 1.91 1.04 0-5
Table 5. Distribution of household size of the respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Level of education Frequency Percentage
Illiterate (0) 6 10
Literate (0) 6 10
Primary (1-5) 15 25
Lower Secondary (6-8) 15 25
Secondary (9-10) 11 18.33
Higher Secondary (11-12) 5 8.33
Bachelors 2 3.33
Table 6. Distribution of education level of the respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2021
20. 55%
45%
Nuclear Joint
8%
47%
42%
3%
Brahmin Chhetri Janajati Dalit
Figure 3. Distribution of family type of the
respondents
Figure 4. Distribution of ethnicity of the respondents
R
E
S
U
L
T
S Source: Field Survey, 2021
21. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Table 7. Distribution of landholding size of the respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Table 8. Distribution of farming experience of the respondents
Source: Field Survey, 2021
Mean Standard deviation Range
Land holding size (ropani) 19.08 11.59 4-45
Total cultivated area (ropani) 15.31 9.69 3-45
Mandarin cultivated area (ropani) 8.33 5.47 2-26
Variables Mean Standard Deviation Minumum
Farming experience 18.82 6.61 10-40
Mandarin cultivation experience (years) 11.68 6.77 5-40
Years of commercial cultivation 5.78 4.49 1-25
22. Figure 5. Planting materials used by respondents
Table 9. Sources of planting materials used by respondents
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
9
25
26
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Seedling Vegetative Both
Number
of
respondents
Planting materials used
Responses Own PMAMP Other farmers Private firms
Yes 10(16.67) 22(36.67) 38(63.33) 35(58.33)
No 50(83.33) 38(63.33) 22(36.67) 25(41.67)
Source: Field survey, 2021
Cultivation practices followed by respondents
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
23. Figure 6. Cropping pattern followed by respondents
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
23
37
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
monocropping intercropping
Number
of
respondents
Cropping pattern followed
Source: Field survey, 2021
24. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Major diseases and insects in mandarin orchards of the respondents
Insects Scores Total Index Rank
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
Fruit fly 41 15 4 0 0 55.4 0.92 1
leaf miner 5 8 3 7 37 23.4 0.39 5
Aphid 6 23 19 12 0 40.6 0.68 2
Mealy bug 0 2 16 29 13 25.4 0.42 4
Citrus stink bug 8 12 18 12 10 35.2 0.59 3
Disease Scores Total Index Rank
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2
PM 31 17 11 1 0 51.6 0.86 1
Canker 12 19 20 7 2 42.4 0.71 2
Foot rot 13 13 15 18 1 39.8 0.66 3
Greening 3 10 8 21 18 27.8 0.46 4
Scab 1 1 6 13 39 18.4 0.31 5
Table 10. Farmer’s ranking on major insects of mandarin
Table 11. Farmer’s ranking on major insects of mandarin
Source: Field survey, 2021
Source: Field survey, 2021
25. Awareness status among respondents about fruit fly and its damage in mandarin
70%
30%
Aware Unaware
Figure 7. Awareness status of fruit fly and its damage among mandarin growers
R
E
S
U
L
T
S Source: Field survey, 2021
26. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Response Other farmers Extension officers Mass media
Yes 14(77.78) 10(55.56) 7(38.89)
No 4(22.22) 8(44.44) 11(61.11)
Reasons Yes No
Lack of self-interest to know 10(23.81) 32(76.19)
Lack of technical knowhow 28(66.67) 14(33.33)
Lack of government led activities 27(64.29) 15(35.71)
Lack of communication efforts from government and non-government
agencies
16(38.10) 26(61.90)
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Source: Field survey, 2021
Source: Field survey, 2021
Table 12. Sources of information about fruit fly among the respondents
Table 13. Reasons behind lack of information about fruit fly among the respondents
27. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Response Fruit drop Distorted and
malformed fruits
Fruit leisons Presence of
maggots
Yes 14(77.78) 10(55.56) 11(61.11) 9(50)
No 4(22.22) 8(44.44) 7(38.89) 9(50)
Table 14. Description of fruit fly damage given by aware respondents
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Source: Field survey, 2021
28. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Damage level Frequency Percentage
Low (0-25%) 5 8.33
Medium(25-50%) 18 30
High(50-75%) 22 36.67
Very high75-100%) 15 25
Total 60 100
29
31
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Fruiting Ripening
Number
of
respondents
Damaging stage
Table 15. Extent of damage caused by fruit fly in mandarin
Source: Field survey, 2021
Figure 8. Damaging stage of fruit fly in mandarin
Source: Field survey, 2021
29. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Response Yes No
Poor orchard sanitation 45 (75) 15 (25)
Lack of knowledge on insect biology 30 (50) 30 (50)
Unavailability of appropriate chemical pesticide 36 (60) 24 (40)
Lack of awareness on use of traps 32(53.33) 28(46.67)
Inadequate support from service providers 38(63.33) 22(36.67)
Table 16. Reasons of increasing fruit fly infestation in mandarin
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Source: Field survey, 2021
30. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
17
43
Inspect Doesn't inspect
Response Frequency Percentage Cumulative
percentage
A couple of times a week 7 41.18 41.8
Once a week 7 41.18 82.35
Not very often 3 17.65 100
Total 17 100
Figure 9 . Status of inspection of field for fruit fly damage
Table 17. Assessment of the degree of field inspection
Source: Field survey, 2021
31. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Management practices of farmers for fruit fly control
Response Pruning Bordeaux
mixture
Pesticide
use
Fallen fruit
management
Use of
traps
Yes 53(88.33) 45(75) 14(23.33) 47(78.33) 17(28.33)
No 7(11.67) 15(25) 46(76.67) 13(21.67) 43(71.67)
Source: Field survey, 2021
Table 18. Farmer’s practices on management of fruit fly in mandarin
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
32. Response Kept in plastic
bag
Dumped in a pit Mixed in
manure pit
Fed to livestock
Yes 24(51.06) 21(44.68) 18(38.30) 31(65.96)
No 23(48.94) 26(55.32) 29(61.70) 16(34.04)
Response Cue Lure Methyl Eugenol Protein Hydrolysate
Yes 16(94.12) 7(41.18) 6(35.29)
No 1(5.88) 10(58.82) 11(64.71)
Table 19. Farmer’s response on different practices adopted to manage fallen fruits
Table 20. Farmer’s response on types of traps used to control fruit fly
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Source: Field survey, 2021
Source: Field survey, 2021
R
E
S
U
L
T
S
33. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Response Agrovet DADO/PMAMP Friends Mass media
Yes 14(82.35) 12(70.59) 6(35.29) 7(41.18)
No 3(17.65) 5(29.41) 11(64.71) 10(58.82)
12
5
Agrovet PMAMP/DADO
Table 21. Farmer’s response on information sources of trap used
Note: Figures in parentheses represent percentage of respondents
Source: Field survey, 2021
Source: Field survey, 2021
Figure 10 . Source of traps used by respondents
35. R
E
S
U
L
T
S
Composition of trapped species
76.39
18.51
5.09
Bactrocera nigrofemoralis
Zeugodacus tau
Zeugodacus scutellaris
45.74
54.26
Bactrocera nigrofemoralis
Zeugodacus tau
36. Population dynamics of fruit fly in different altitudes during the study period
Population dynamics of fruit fly species captured in cue lure
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Number
of
fruit
flies
Date
Altitude 1350 Altitude 1550 Altitude 1750
