Next Article in Journal
The Extent to Which Hemp Insulation Materials Can Be Used in Canadian Residential Buildings
Next Article in Special Issue
Farmers’ Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices Regarding the Use of Agroecological-Based Pest Management Practices in Crucifers and Traditional African Vegetable (TAV) Production in Kenya and Tanzania
Previous Article in Journal
Commercial System Reform, Enterprise Green Innovation and Enterprise ESG Performance
Previous Article in Special Issue
Suppression of Meloidogyne javanica Infection in Peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) Using Fungal Biocontrol Agents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 19
10.3390/su151914470
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Field Evaluation of Slow-Release Wax Formulations: A Novel Approach for Managing Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

by
Muhammad Dildar Gogi
1,
Waleed Afzal Naveed
2,
Asim Abbasi
3,
Bilal Atta
4,
Muhammad Asif Farooq
5,*,
Mishal Subhan
6,
Inzamam Ul Haq
7,
Muhammad Asrar
8,
Najat A. Bukhari
9,
Ashraf Atef Hatamleh
9 and
Mohamed A. A. Ahmed
10,11
1
Integrated Pest Management Laboratory, Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
2
College of Plant Protection, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
3
Department of Environmental Sciences, Kohsar University Murree, Murree 47150, Pakistan
4
Rice Research Institute, Kala Shah Kaku 39020, Pakistan
5
Institute of Plant Protection, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif-University of Agriculture, Multan 66000, Pakistan
6
Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, The Women University Multan, Multan 66000, Pakistan
7
Guangdong Key Laboratory of Animal Conservation and Resource Utilization, Guangdong Public Laboratory of Wild Animal Conservation and Utilization, Institute of Zoology, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510260, China
8
Department of Zoology, Government College University, Faisalabad 38040, Pakistan
9
Department of Botany and Microbiology, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
10
Plant Production Department (Horticulture—Medicinal and Aromatic Plants), Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Alexandria 21531, Egypt
11
School of Agriculture, Yunnan University, Chenggong District, Kunming 650091, China
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(19), 14470; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914470
Submission received: 5 August 2023 / Revised: 11 September 2023 / Accepted: 27 September 2023 / Published: 4 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Integrated Pest Management: Achievements and Challenges)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Chemical management of the peach fly, Bactrocera zonata has been compromised due to adverse effects of pesticide residues that not only contaminate environment but also affect non-target organisms including beneficial insects, birds, aquatic life, and soil microorganisms. They can be impacted through direct exposure or by consuming contaminated prey or plants. The present study was designed keeping in view this increasing demand of the consumers to get pesticide residue free fruit and vegetable produce because it reflects the growing consumer concern for food safety and environmental sustainability, motivating the need for alternative pest management strategies. The field experiment was conducted to determine the best slow-release formulation prepared by mixing the following five different types of waxes, including Candelilla wax (CanW), Paraffin wax (PW), Carnauba wax (CarW), Lanolin wax (LW) and Bees wax (BW) with methyl eugenol (ME) (to attract male B. zonata). The selection of the five different types of waxes was likely based on their biodegradability, availability, and potential for slow-release properties. The result revealed that formulations containing SRF-7[LW], SRF-9[CanW], SRF-8[BW], SRF-9[CarW] and SRF-9[PW] exhibited the maximum capture of 42.10 ± 8.14, 43.30 ± 1.76, 34.30 ± 2.96, 35.30 ± 3.18 and 22.70 ± 3.18 male B. zonata per trap per day, respectively. These effective formulations were further evaluated in experiment in which the comparative trapping efficiency of each wax formulation was assessed. The results demonstrated that formulation containing SRF-9[CanW] was expressed maximum capture 13.77 ± 1.26 male B. zonata per trap per day. These formulations were further evaluated in another experiment in which the trapping efficiency was assessed by four different application methods (simple bottle trap, simple bottle trap with water, yellow sticky trap and jute piece with sticky material). The results demonstrated that formulation containing SRF-9[CarW] applied by yellow sticky trap (YST) trapped 61.74 + 7.69 male B. zonata per trap per day and proved more effective. This formulation can be recommended for trapping and management of male population of B. zonata in fruit orchards. This study can influence eco-friendly B. zonata pest control policies, reducing chemical pesticide usage and promoting agricultural sustainability. Future research should study the long-term impact of slow-release formulations on agricultural sustainability, including pest control, crop yield, and agroecosystem health.

1. Introduction

The peach fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) is a serious polyphagous pest of fruits and vegetables [1,2,3], which attacks more than 50 cultivated and wild plants, mainly fleshy fruits, such as guava (Psidium guajava L.), mango (Mangifera indica L.), peach (Prunus persica L.), apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.), figs (Ficus carica L.) and citrus in many parts of the world [4,5,6] through its oviposition behavior. The female fruit fly lays eggs within the fruits, and upon hatching, the larvae feed on the fruit pulp. This feeding damages the fruit, rendering it unmarketable and susceptible to secondary infections [7].
Bactrocera zonata reproduces through sexual reproduction, involving both males and females. When male and female flies use visual clues and pheromones to locate each other, the mating process begins. The courtship behavior, such as wing display and distinct sounds, helps to attract mating partners. Once successful mating has taken place, a male transfer sperm to the female. In this case, the female is looking for appropriate host fruits and uses ovipositor to insert her eggs. Host fruit selection is of utmost importance in order to ensure the survival of offspring. Within these chosen fruits, eggs develop into larvae, which feed on the pulp as they grow. Depending upon factors such as temperature and fruit type, the duration of a larval stage may be different. After this, the maggots leave the fruits and pupate in the soil to transform into adult flies. The adult flies emerge from the soil, ready to continue their reproductive cycle by discovering a mate and laying eggs in suitable host fruit [8,9].
The fruit fly species is indigenous to Asia and is widely distributed in south-eastern countries such as India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Thailand and Mauritius [4,10,11,12,13]. Bactrocera zonata has acquired the status of an economic and quarantine pest throughout the world. It causes 10–20% of losses in the northwestern Himalayas and up to 89.50% in Pakistan [14], and reportedly leads to 3–100% fruit loss in different fruits or vegetables [15].
Fruit flies also cause 40–80% direct damage to the export of major crops in various varieties, seasons and regions is primarily due to the strict quality and phytosanitary standards imposed by importing countries [16,17]. Due to sanitary, phytosanitary and quarantine restrictions imposed by importing countries may include requirements for fumigation, hot water treatment, or cold storage of fruits, their detection in fruits restricts the export of fruits in the international market [18,19,20]. Every year, millions of dollars are spent on the management of fruit flies to reduce the pre- and post-harvest losses and implement strict pre-export processing of horticultural products [21]. The management of fruit flies in pre- and post-harvest is intended to minimize losses through the implementation of a variety of control measures. These include orchard sanitation, trapping, insecticide application, and cultural practices. Development of insect resistance in fruit fly populations, as well as need to use sustainable and environmentally friendly methods for pesticide control are some of the challenges during this process [22,23].
In many countries, the management of fruit flies is becoming increasingly difficult due to their behaviors at different stages of life, their adaptability to various foods and biological conditions, and the elimination of effective broad-spectrum fruit-fly-specific insecticides from the market due to the development of resistance in fruit fly populations, environmental concerns, and the desire for safer and more sustainable pest management practices [24,25].
Extensive research on various aspects of fruit fly management strategies has been reported in the literature [26,27]. The total number of existing research literature shows that fruit fly management includes biological control (using natural predators or parasites) (29%), chemical control (insecticides) (20%), behavior control (pheromones) (18%), biological pesticides (microbial agents) (17%) and natural pesticides (plant extracts) (13%), mechanical control (trapping) (7%) and genetic control (sterile insect technique) (6%) strategies [28,29,30,31,32,33]. However, only 14% of the studies were conducted on different surveillance techniques to monitor fruit flies [25]. This gap hinders the timely detection and control of fruit fly outbreaks, leading to economic losses. A number of obstacles, including pesticide resistance, environmental concerns, and species-specific behavior prevent effective implementation of these control methods against B. zonata. In order to overcome these obstacles and enhance the effectiveness of control, integrated pest management strategies that combine a variety of approaches and consider local conditions are essential [25].
In developing countries, the management of B. zonata is completely dependent on the application of synthetic insecticides through cover sprays because of their affordability and immediate effectiveness [2,34,35,36]. Farmers mostly use the blind and injudicious application to suppress the population of B. zonata but these insecticides lead to contaminations of fruits and vegetables and cause many other serious problems, including food safety and food security, increasing the level of pesticides residues in food commodities, resistance in the pest population and destruction of beneficial and non-target fauna [37,38,39,40,41].
Therefore, it is necessary to explore alternative eco-friendly pest management strategies for the control of the B. zonata, so mating disruption with synthetic insect sex pheromones is one method of insect control that can be used as part of an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program [42,43,44]. Pheromones are relatively nontoxic, are used in small quantities, and are biodegradable [45,46,47]. Pheromones are also easy to handle, have fewer regulatory restrictions, and result in minimal disruption of other orchard or crop operations [48,49].
Currently, most of the pheromones used for mating disruption are contained in plastic dispensers that are manually attached to trees or plants [50,51,52]. Within 2–3 months, the pheromone slowly diffuses through the plastic or polymeric wall of the dispenser [53]. Although the use of plastic pheromone dispensers has achieved effective control of certain pests, the application is labor-intensive and typically they must be dispensed several times per season.
The use of pheromones to disrupt mating in insects is a control technique that can result in a significant reduction in the number of synthetic pesticides used by farmers. However, it is difficult to develop a controlled release formulation that can be sprayed on the crops for an extended period and release pheromones at a constant rate over some time (6 weeks or more) due to the need to maintain stability, consistency, duration, and compatibility.
This is a factor that limits the widespread use of mating disruption as a part of pest management strategy. Spray applications generally require the active agent to be dispersed in the carrier, resulting in a decrease in the release rate over time. However, a constant (zero-order) release rate is necessary to obtain the most economical controlled release of pheromone. Although the concept of controlling insects by mating disruption is effective, to gain widespread acceptance and use requires the dispensation of pheromones at a constant rate over an extended period.
The objectives of this study included the preparation and evaluation of slow-release formulations (SRFs) using various biodegradable waxes i.e., Candelilla wax (CanW), Paraffin wax (PW), Carnauba wax (CarW), Lanolin wax (LW) and Bees wax (BW) combined with methyl eugenol (ME) for the management of male Bactrocera zonata. The aim of these objectives was to assess the trapping performance of such SRFs in different plant canopies, select suitable formulations and compare their effectiveness with a standard trap. In addition, the attractiveness between treatments was assessed and classified them by attractancy indices in order to determine which techniques was most effective when applied, such as simple bottle trap, bottle trap with water, yellow sticky trap and jute piece with sticky material. The study offers a promise in the field of pest control and sustainable agriculture. The aim of the study is to develop eco-friendly, slow-release wax formulas for male B. zonata control. Success could deliver a revolution in pest control, providing benefits to crops, the environment and agricultural sustainability. Farmers could benefit from cost effective solutions, reducing costs and increasing profits. The study has further improved the methods for controlling pests, as well as our understanding of pest behavior. The findings would have applicability to other pests, affecting policies and serving as a source of learning for farmers by promoting best practices in pest management and sustainability.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation of Slow-Release Formulations of Biodegradable Waxes

The five biodegradable waxes including Candelilla wax (CanW) (The Nature’s Store, Lahore, Pakistan), Paraffin wax (PW) (The Nature’s Store, Lahore, Pakistan), Carnauba wax (CarW) (AUCHEMICALS, Lahore, Pakistan), Lanolin wax (LW) (Aroma Farmacy, Karachi, Pakistan) and Bees wax (BW) (PANSARI, Lahore, Pakistan) were used to prepare slow-release formulations (SRF) with methyl eugenol (ME) (Vantage, Lahore, Pakistan). Each wax was mixed with ME in nine ratios (Table 1). The waxes were melted inside the microwave oven (15–22 °C) for 2 min. When these melted waxes were near to cooling, ME was admixed by employing a gentle stirring method [54]. ME was slowly added while continuously stirring until a homogenous mixture was obtained. The mixture of ME and waxes was filled in glass vials with a cap and kept at room temperature till their solidification (Figure 1).

2.2. Experiment-I: Evaluation of Trapping Efficiency of Slow-Release Formulations Prepared in Different Types of Biodegradable Waxes

Fifty-four biodegradable waxes were prepared along with a Standard trap (ST) containing only Conventional ME and were installed in the center of the tree canopy of each plant by following the methodology of Nisar et al. [14]. The plants in each orchard (mango, citrus, and guava) were selected based on their availability in the area. Flowering/fruiting seasons were not considered as a selection criterion, except for mango, and plants were chosen randomly within the layout plan.
The traps (made up of plastic bottles) were installed at the height of about 450 cm on the horizontal branch of the central stem inside the tree canopy where B. zonata activity is typically highest, while avoiding interference with ground-level activity [14]. Each trap was fixed by knotting one end of a string (30 cm long) with the trap’s hook and its other end with the horizontal branch of stem (Figure 2). The trapping efficiency of each formulation was counted daily till no B. zonata was trapped in each trap. The trapped fruit flies were collected in polythene bags separately for each trap, brought to the laboratory, identified and separated into males and females of B. zonata based on morphological characteristics, as described by White and Elson-Harris [55]. This involved careful examination of the insects’ physical traits such as size, coloration, and the presence or absence of specific features.

2.3. Experiment-II: Evaluation of Comparative Trapping Efficiency of a Highly Attractive Combination of Slow-Release Formulations Prepared in Different Types of Biodegradable Waxes

Highly attractive formulations were selected from Experiment-I based on their trapping efficiency. The six highly attractive formulations along with ST (Conventional ME) were installed in the center of the tree canopy of one plant to maximize exposure to B. zonata, as this is the area where their activity is concentrated during feeding and mating by following the methodology of Nisar et al. [14], similar to Experiment-I (Figure 2).
The trapping efficiency of highly attractive formulations was counted daily till no B. zonata was trapped in each trap. The trapped fruit flies were collected in polythene bags separately for each trap, brought to the laboratory, identified and separated into males and females of B. zonata based on morphological characteristics, as described by White and Elson-Harris [55].

2.4. Experiment-III: Evaluation of Trapping Efficiency of the Highly Attractive Slow-Release Formulation by Different Implementation Techniques

The highly attractive and slow-release formulations determined from Experiment-II were assessed by following implementation techniques (Figure 2):

2.4.1. Simple Bottle Trap

In this method, traps were made as previously used in Experiment-I. The formulation was prepared and filled in glass vials, installed in plastic bottles and these bottles were used for trapping in the field.

2.4.2. Simple Bottle Trap with Water

This method was the same as “Method-I” but in this method, the bottom of the plastic bottles (1.5 L) was filled with simple water and then installed in field for trapping.

2.4.3. Yellow Sticky Trap

In this method, a triangular hut (5″ width × 7″ length) was made of yellow color charts. In the bottom of the hut a sliding tray was adjusted. Sticky material (APSPRAT, Hubei Fengde Weiye New Material Co. Ltd., Xianning, China) and the concerned formulation were admixed and applied to the sliding tray which was then put in triangular hut. The triangular hut was then installed in the field for trapping of B. zonata.

2.4.4. Jute Piece with Sticky Material

In this method, a jute piece measuring 10 × 5 inches was used. At first, sticky material was added on piece then the formulation was admixed on it, this piece was hanged in the field for the attraction of B. zonata.
These four methods were kept in observation and the B. zonata trapped in each method were counted daily till no B. zonata was trapped. Conventional ME trapping technique was used for comparison ST. The trapped fruit flies were collected in polythene bags separately for each trap, brought to the laboratory, identified and separated into males and females of B. zonata based on morphological characteristics, as described by White and Elson-Harris [55].

2.5. Data Analyses

All the treatments were applied in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in the fields and replicated thrice. The collected data was transformed into percentage attracted and data were analyzed using ANOVA technique and means were compared by Tukey’s HSD test. The data were also transformed into attractancy rating using the following formula described by Beroza and Green [56].
AI = IA TR − IA S IA T × 100
where: AI = Attractancy index; IATR = Insects attracted in treatment; IAS = Insects attracted in Standard trap; IAT = Total insects attracted
The treatments were then classified into different classes based on attractancy indices as describes by Beroza and Green [56] (Table 2).

3. Results

3.1. Trapping Efficiency of Slow-Release Formulations Prepared in Different Types of Biodegradable Waxes

3.1.1. Lanolin Wax

The results indicated that SRF-7 captured maximum B. zonata (42.1 male per trap per day), which was found approximately 3.6 times higher than ST (11.7 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. The performance of all formulations of LW was found in order of SRF-7 > SRF-8 > SRF-9 > SRF-6 > SRF-3 > SRF-5 > SRF-4 > SRF-2 > SRF-1 > ST (Figure 3).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that only SRF-7 exhibited 51.71% AI proved strongly attractive SRF to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-III SRF (AI > 50%) (Table 3). The SRF-2, SRF-3, SRF-4, SRF-5, SRF-6, SRF-8 and SRF-9 exhibited 20.54%, 41.02%, 26.00%, 34.15%, 43.50%, 49.86% and 46.07% AI, respectively, proved moderately attractive SRFs and were categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%) (Table 3). Only SRF-1 exhibited 0.71% AI proved little or non-attractive SRF and was categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%) (Table 3).

3.1.2. Candelilla Wax

The results of means indicated that SRF-9 captured maximum B. zonata (43.3 male per trap per day), which was found approximately 3.7 times higher than ST (11.7 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. The performance of all formulations of CanW was found in order of SRF-9 > SRF-7 > SRF-5 > ST > SRF-6 > SRF-2 > SRF-8 > SRF-4 > SRF-3 > SRF-1 (Figure 3).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that only SRF-9 exhibited 57.57% AI proved strongly attractive SRF to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-III SRF (AI > 50%) (Table 3). Only SRF-7 exhibited 15.55% AI proved moderately attractive SRF and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%) (Table 3). The SRF-1, SRF-2, SRF-3, SRF-4, SRF-5, SRF-6 and SRF-8 exhibited −66.66%, −11.11%, −55.55%, −29.63%, 1.40%, −0.001% and −12.90% AI, respectively, proved little or non-attractive SRF and were categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%) (Table 3).

3.1.3. Bees Wax

The results of means indicated that SRF-8 captured maximum B. zonata (34.3 male per trap per day), which was found approximately 3 times higher than ST (11.7 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. The performance of all formulations of BW was found in order of SRF-8 > SRF-9 > SRF-7 > ST > SRF-5 > SRF-4 > SRF-6 > SRF-3 > SRF-2 > SRF-1 (Figure 3).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that only SRF-7, SRF-8 and SRF-9 exhibited 18.60%, 49.27% and 44.88% AI, respectively, proved moderately attractive SRF and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%) (Table 3). The SRF-1, SRF-2, SRF-3, SRF-4, SRF-5 and SRF-6 exhibited −52.17%, −42.85%, −27.27%, −6.06%, −2.94% and −20.69% AI, respectively, proved little or non-attractive SRF and was categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%) (Table 3).

3.1.4. Carnauba Wax

The results of means indicated that SRF-9 captured maximum B. zonata (35.3 male per trap per day), which was found approximately 3 times higher than ST (11.7 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. The performance of all formulations of CarW was found in order of SRF-9 > SRF-8 > SRF-6 > ST > SRF-7 > SRF-5 > SRF-2 > SRF-4 > SRF-3 > SRF-1 (Figure 3).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that only SRF-9 exhibited 50.35% AI proved strongly attractive SRF to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-III SRF (AI > 50%) (Table 3). The SRF-1, SRF-2, SRF-3, SRF-4, SRF-5, SRF-6, SRF-7 and SRF-8 exhibited −70.73%, −37.25%, −55.55%, −48.93%, −34.61%, 1.40%, −9.37% and 10.25% AI, respectively, proved little or non-attractive SRF and were categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%) (Table 3).

3.1.5. Paraffin Wax

The results of means indicated that SRF-9 captured maximum B. zonata (22.7 male per trap per day), which was found approximately 1.9 times higher than ST (11.7 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. The performance of all formulations of PW was found in order of SRF-9 > SRF-8 > SRF-5 > SRF-6 > ST > SRF-7 > SRF-4 > SRF-3 > SRF-1 > SRF-2 (Figure 3).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that only SRF-5, SRF-8 and SRF-9 exhibited 11.39%, 22.22% and 32.03% AI, respectively, proved moderately attractive SRF to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%) (Table 3). The SRF-1, SRF-2, SRF-3, SRF-4, SRF-6 and SRF-7 exhibited −66.66%, −70.73%, −62.79%, −55.55%, 6.66% and −40.00% AI, respectively, proved little or non-attractive SRF and was categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%) (Table 3).

3.2. Comparative Trapping Efficiency of a Highly Attractive Combination of Slow-Release Formulations Prepared in Different Types of Biodegradable Waxes

The results of means indicated that CanW 10% + ME 90% captured maximum B. zonata (13.77 male per trap per day), which was found approximately 2.6 times higher than ST (5.29 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. The PW 10% + ME 90% demonstrated a capture of 11.00 male per trap per day, which was approximately two times higher than ST. Similarly, BW 20% + ME 80% and CarW 10% + ME 90% exhibited a capture of 8.15 and 7.23 male per trap per day, which were approximately 1.5 and 1.4 times higher than ST respectively. Unlikely, LW 30% + ME 70% exhibited a capture of 1.81 male per trap per day and explained approximately three times less capture than ST (Figure 4).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that CanW 10% + ME 90%, PW 10% + ME 90%, BW 20% + ME 80% and CarW 10% + ME 90% exhibited 41.42%, 32.05%, 20.98% and 12.87% AI, respectively, proved moderately attractive SRF to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%) (Table 4). The LW 30% + ME 70% exhibited −61.86% AI proved little or non-attractive SRF and was categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%) (Table 4).

3.3. Trapping Efficiency of the Highly Attractive Slow-Release Formulation by Different Implementation Techniques

3.3.1. Candelilla Wax 10% + Methyl Eugenol 90%

The results of means indicated that CanW 10% + ME 90% captured maximum B. zonata (21.49 male per trap per day) when evaluated by YST method which was found approximately 1.9 times higher than ST (11.00 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. When CanW 10% + ME 90% was assessed by simple bottle trap (SBT) technique, 19.31 male per trap per day were captured which was found approximately 1.8 times higher than ST and statistically like YST technique. Application of CanW 10% + ME 90% by SBTW and jute piece with sticky material (JPSM) demonstrated 7.74 and 8.94 male per trap per day, respectively, which were found approximately 1.4 and 1.2 times less than ST and statistically different from all other SRFs. Overall, CanW 10% + ME 90% proved more attractive with YST method followed by SBT method, JPSM and SBTW (Figure 5).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that none of the application techniques proved strongly attractive application technique to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-III SRF (AI > 50%). CanW 10% + ME 90% with YST and SBT exhibited 32.28% and 27.41% AI, respectively, proved moderately attractive application technique and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%). CanW 10% + ME 90% with SBTW and JPSM exhibited −17.39% and −10.33% AI proved little or non-attractive application technique and was categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%). These results of AI also explained that CanW 10% + ME 90% with YST and SBT exhibited higher attractancy over the ST. However, CanW 10% + ME 90% with SBTW and JPSM demonstrated less attractancy than the ST (Table 5).

3.3.2. Bees Wax 20% + Methyl Eugenol 80%

The results of means indicated that BW 20% + ME 80% captured maximum B. zonata (45.81 male per trap per day) when evaluated by YST method which was found approximately 4.1 times higher than ST (11.00 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. When BW 20% + ME 80% was assessed by SBTW technique, 12.58 male per trap per day were captured which was found approximately 1.2 times higher than ST. Application of BW 20% + ME 80% by SBT and JPSM demonstrated 7.11 and 7.38 male per trap per day, respectively, which were found approximately 1.5 times less than ST and statistically different from all other SRFs. Overall, BW 20% + ME 80% proved more attractive with YST method followed by SBTW method, JPSM and SBT (Figure 5).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that BW 20% + ME 80% with YST technique exhibited 61.27% AI proved strongly attractive application technique to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-III SRF (AI > 50%). None of the application techniques with BW 20% + ME 80% proved moderately attractive and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%). BW 20% + ME 80% with SBTW, SBT and JPSM exhibited 6.70%, −21.49% and −19.69% AI proved little or non-attractive application technique and was categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%). These results of AI also explained that BW 20% + ME 80% with YST and SBTW were higher attractancy over the ST. However, BW 20% + ME 80% with SBT and JPSM demonstrated less attractancy than the ST (Table 5).

3.3.3. Carnauba Wax 10% + Methyl Eugenol 90%

The results of means indicated that CarW 10% + ME 90% captured maximum B. zonata (61.74 male per trap per day) when evaluated by YST method which was found approximately 5.6 times higher than ST (11.00 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. When CarW 10% + ME 90% was assessed by SBTW technique, 33.00 male per trap per day were captured which was found approximately 3 times higher than ST. Application of CarW 10% + ME 90% by SBT demonstrated 25.00 male per trap per day were captured which was found approximately 2.3 times higher than ST. Unlikely, the application of CarW 10% + ME 90% by JPSM exhibited 5.13 male per trap per day, which was found approximately 2.1 times less than ST and statistically different from all other SRFs. Overall, CarW 10% + ME 90% proved more attractive with YST method followed by SBTW, SBT and JPSM (Figure 5).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that CarW 10% + ME 90% with YST and SBTW technique exhibited 69.75% and 50.11% AI, respectively, proved strongly attractive application techniques to B. zonata and were categorized as Class-III SRF (AI > 50%). CarW 10% + ME 90% with SBT exhibited 38.88% AI proved moderately attractive application technique and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%). CarW 10% + ME 90% with JPSM exhibited −36.39% AI proved little or non-attractive application technique and was categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%). These results of AI also explained that CarW 10% + ME 90% with YST, SBTW and SBT were higher attractancy over the ST. However, CarW 10% + ME 90% with JPSM demonstrated less attractancy than the ST (Table 5).

3.3.4. Paraffin Wax 10% + Methyl Eugenol 90%

The results of means indicated that PW 10% + ME 90% captured maximum B. zonata (36.47 male per trap per day) when evaluated by SBTW which was found approximately 3.3 times higher than ST (11.00 male per trap per day) and statistically different from all other SRFs. When PW 10% + ME 90% was assessed by YST technique, 10.14 male per trap per day were captured that was found approximately similar ST. Application of PW 10% + ME 90% by SBT and JPSM demonstrated 8.72 and 4.91 male per trap per day, respectively, which were found approximately 1.2 and 2.2 times less than ST and statistically different from all other SRFs. Overall, PW 10% + ME 90% proved more attractive with SBTW followed by YST method, SBT method and JPSM (Figure 5).
The results of AI under field conditions revealed that PW 10% + ME 90% with SBTW exhibited 53.65% AI proved strongly attractive application technique to B. zonata and was categorized as Class-III SRF (AI > 50%). None of the application techniques proved moderately attractive application technique and was categorized as Class-II SRF (AI = 11–50%). PW 10% + ME 90% with SBT, YST and JPSM exhibited −11.56%, −4.06% and −38.27% AI proved little or non-attractive application technique and were categorized as Class-I SRF (AI < 11%). These results of AI also explained that PW 10% + ME 90% with SBTW was higher attractancy over the ST. However, PW 10% + ME 90% with SBT, YST and JPSM demonstrated less attractancy than the ST (Table 5).
Regardless of the application techniques, results revealed that the CarW 10% + ME 90% attracted 27.5 male B. zonata per trap per day, which was 2.5 times higher than ST. CarW 10% + ME 90% proved to be highly attractive in in-season and in off-season environments. After CarW 10% + ME 90%, BW 20% + ME 80% was important in the attraction of B. zonata. CarW 10% + ME 90% captured 17.0 male per trap per day that was 1.5 times higher than ST. Application of CanW 10% + ME 90% and PW 10% + ME 90% demonstrated a capture of 14.0 and 15.0 male per trap per day, respectively, which were found approximately 1.2 and 1.3 times higher respectively than ST. Overall, CarW 10% + ME 90% proved most attractive followed by BW 20% + ME 80%, PW 10% + ME 90% and CanW 10% + ME 90% (Figure 6).
Regardless of the SRFs, results revealed that the YST was more attractive in the attraction of male B. zonata and it was more effective to be used with SRFs that capture 35.0 male per trap per day which was 3 times higher attractancy than ST. SBTW was also showed maximum attractancy after the YST that capture 23.0 male per trap per day and this method was 2 times higher than ST. After this, SBT exhibited a capture of 15.0 male per trap per day which was found approximately 1.3 times higher attractancy than ST. Unlikely, the JPSM exhibited a capture of 6.1 male per trap per day was found approximately 1.8 times less attractancy than ST. Overall, YST was the most attractive application technique in the attraction of male followed by SBTW, SBT and then JPSM (Figure 7).
The results of these experiments exhibited that CarW 10% + ME 90% and BW 20% + ME 80% attracted the maximum number of flies that was 61.74 and 45.81 male B. zonata per trap per day, when assessed by YST. However, CanW 10% + ME 90% demonstrated a capture of 21.49 and 19.31 male per trap per day when assessed by YST and SBT technique, respectively. While, PW 10% + ME 90% demonstrated a capture of 36.47 male per trap per day when assessed by SBTW technique. Overall, CarW 10% + ME 90% proved more attractive with YST method followed by SBTW, SBT and JPSM. BW 20% + ME 80% proved more attractive with YST method followed by SBTW method, JPSM and SBT. PW 10% + ME 90% proved more attractive with SBTW followed by YST method, SBT method and JPSM and CanW 10% + ME 90% proved more attractive with YST method followed by SBT method, JPSM and SBTW (Figure 8).

4. Discussion

Insect pheromones have high vitality but exhibit photo-degradability and instability due to their chemical structure. These pheromones reduce the biological activity (attractiveness) of the insects quickly due to photo-oxidation, auto-oxidation, isomerization and volatility [57,58,59]. Complex chemical reactions, which are influenced by factors like exposure to UV light and oxygen, affect the photo-oxidation, auto-oxidation and isomerization of insect pheromones. Photo-oxidation is a reaction where pheromones react to oxygen and UV radiation, resulting in the formation of reactive oxygen species that cause their molecules to be degraded. Auto-oxidation is when pheromone reactions with oxygen in the atmosphere take place over time. Isomerization is the process by which chemical structure of pheromone molecules changes due to a number of factors. Protection formulations, e.g., pheromones in the wax-based slow release system or additives to an antioxidant formulation, can be used for both prevention and control of these processes. These strategies can contribute to protecting pheromones from the effects of UV light and oxidative reactions [60,61,62].
This necessitates developing an approach that protect them from photo-degradation by UV light and oxidation, ensures their slow releases, prolong their bio-life and biological activity and enhance their efficiency in pheromone-based mating disruption technique [63]. Finding adequate material for encapsulation, managing release and maintaining the stability of pheromone compounds is one of the most important challenges in protecting pheromones from photo-degradation and oxidation. Exposure to temperature variations and humidity, which also may have an effect on the stability of pheromones and release, can be another potential degradability mechanism [64,65,66]. Mating disruption is a pest management technique based on the release of large amounts of synthetic sex pheromones in the field, to destroy the sexual communication between insects [58,59].
The mating behavior of tephritid fruit flies, including B. zonata, is predominated by “Lekking” comportment which is characterized by aggregation of males on host and/or non-host plantation, attraction of females to lekking-sites and selection of potential counterpart for courtship followed by multiple-mating/polyandry [67,68,69]. Availability of wild male fruit flies in the orchard and field-crop ecosystem enhances lekking and promotes multiple-mating/polyandry in tephritid fruit flies that ultimately stimulates oviposition in fruits and fruit damage by post-mated females [69,70]. Trapping male population not only inhibits/lessens chances of mating of wild female flies, fertilization of eggs, oviposition and future progeny development but also indirectly minimizes the fruit losses and enhances marketable yield as well as economic benefits [69].
Male tephritid flies themselves do not cause fruit damages directly, however, their indirect role in damage stimulation in post-mated female tephritid flies is too momentous and crucial [69]. If this indirect vital role of male flies is checked by mass male-trapping, through Male-Annihilation-Technique (MAT), post-mating effects (oviposition, fruit damages, remating/multiple-mating behavior) can be controlled or minimized and ultimately, yield and economic benefits can be enhanced [69].
Developing wax-based slow-release-formulations of sex pheromones is an effective approach that enhances the efficiency of a pheromone-based mating disruption system [71]. Their chemical properties have a bearing on the choice of waxes for slow-release formulations. The potential for forming a coherent matrix with pheromones, controlling the diffusion rate of pheromone molecules and protecting them from environmental influences are among the specific characteristics of waxes which increase their retention and release. For these formulations it is often preferable to use wax with appropriate melting points, viscosity and solubility in the carrier solution [72,73].
The lekking behavior of B. zonata is mostly observed around the fruits and underside the leaves of the host crop [69,74]. So, mass trapping of male population of B. zonata through slow-release wax formulation of para-pheromone (methyl eugenol) in host crop can impact lekking and post-mating effects (oviposition, fruit damages, remating/multiple-mating behavior) negatively [69].
Para-pheromones are highly volatile in nature. When these para-pheromones are installed inside the traps, these are quickly volatilized, photodegraded and lose their bio-efficacy (attractancy) within a short period of time (less than a week) due to their exposure to high temperature in field conditions. So, sole application of para-pheromones in the field in traps proves least effective. The attract-and-kill potential of para-pheromones can be enhanced and prolonged by developing their slow-release formulations in biodegradable natural waxes. Such wax based slow-release formulation can protect para-pheromones from weathering impacts, prolong their bio-life, and enhance their bio-efficacy. A prolonged mass trapping of male tephritid flies by wax based slow-release formulation of para-pheromones in host crop can reduce population of male flies significantly, impact lekking behavior, and influence post-mating effects (remating/multiple-mating behavior, oviposition, fruit damages, yield losses) negatively [69].
In the present study, different bio-waxes-based ME formulations were prepared and assessed for their trapping efficacy against B. zonata. The first experiment was designed to indicate the most attractive ratios of ME that attract the flies over a long period with different waxes. Zada et al. [72] used waxes for the slow release of pheromones and proved that waxes sustain the pheromone for over 28 days. Gomez and Coen [75] reported that biodegradable waxes were effective for the continuous discharge of ME for a long period from 4 to 12 weeks. They assessed different biodegradable waxes and results exhibited that 10–45% by weight of these waxes gave long persistency. These results are in agreement with the results of present study which demonstrate that LW 30%, CanW 10%, BW 20%, CarW 10% and PW at 10% gave maximum attractancy and attracted flies for over 30 days. Slow-release formulations (SRFs) based on LW, CanW, CarW demonstrated 3–3.7 times higher attraction than standard (only ME) and were categorized as class-III formulation (AI > 50%). While SRFs based on BW, and PW demonstrated 1–2 times higher attraction than standard and were categorized as class-II formulation (AI = 11–50%). The results regarding the efficacy of PW emulsion of present study conforms with the results of Atterholt et al. [76] who documented that a paraffin emulsion exhibited a longer (more than 100 days) and constant release rate of pheromone at 27°C in the laboratory.
However, the results regarding the attractancy of other wax-based SRFs cannot be compared and contrasted as very little information are available in the literature reviewed on these lines of study involving these waxes. The degradation and release of the pheromone in the wax mixture depend on the types of wax used in emulsion-matrix and vary with the type of wax [77,78]. Yoon et al. [78] reported that the maximum release rate of pheromone was found in an emulsion containing PW. These reports of Yoon et al. [77] also confirm our results regarding the variation in the attractancy of various wax-based SRFs in the field where these SRFs are exposed to various physical factors especially temperature that affect the release rate of pheromone from different waxes. The variation in the temperature-based release rate of pheromone from waxes and ultimately the attractancy of these biodegradable waxes based SRFs may be attributed to the difference in physic-chemical properties of these waxes including thermal properties, chemical composition, hardness/brittleness, crystallinity, contraction, emulsification, oil-binding capacity, solubility in solvent/chemicals, viscosity, and retention-capacity. But these properties of waxes were not studies in the present research and need to be investigated for a better conclusion on the causes of variation in the efficiency of waxes-based slow-release formulations.
The second experiment was designed to compare the attractancy of five selected slow-release formulations from experiment-1 (SRF based on CanW, BW, CarW, PW and LW). CanW based SRF (10% CanW + 90% ME) proved highly attractive (2.6 times higher than standard) followed by Bees wax (20% BW + 80% ME) and PW (10% PW + 90% ME) based SRF (1.5 times higher than standard). The better efficiency of these waxes based SRF over the standard may be attributed to the fact that these waxes improve the chemical retention and surface tension properties as well as coating plasticity of the emulsion prepared by admixing ME and these waxes by forming a protective barrier around pheromone molecules. This barrier prevents the pheromones from being dispersed or evaporating quickly, which allows their release to be controlled and sustained. Waxes can also improve surface tension of the product by facilitating its spread and application to surfaces such as those targeted for insect pests [79]. Similar reasons have also been explained by various researchers [58,63,71]. These results are highly inconsistent with the results of Zisopoulou et al. [59] who reported that different waxes and mineral oil-based emulsion improve surface tension properties and coating plasticity. Overall, the results of Zisopoulou et al. [59] are highly in agreement with the results of present study which demonstrate that maximum attractancy was found in different waxes and SRFs based on these four waxes were found moderately attractive when checked in comparison. The more attractancy of CanW may be attributed to its more solubility towards pheromone and sustained release at the higher rate of pheromone from its emulsion followed by that of BW, CarW and PW in their respective formulations/emulsions. Similar reasons have been explained by Yoon et al. [77] behind the differential sustained release of pheromone from different emulsions prepared from different waxes. According to Gomez and Coen [75], ME, cue-lure and biodegradable wax by weight of the total emulsion-formulation remain effective in providing a continuous release of ME and cue-lure from the carrier over an extended period of at least four weeks. The results of second experiment also demonstrate that three SRFs having 10% CanW + 90% ME, 20% BW + 80% ME, 10% PW + 90% ME and 10% CarW + 90% ME proved more attractive than standard against B. zonata in a comparative study. The partial inconsistency in the composition by weight of biodegradable wax is due to variation in components of the emulsion as they have admixed two pheromones (ME and cue-lure) while we have admixed only one pheromone (ME) in an emulsion. The wax-based ME-emulsions prove more effective for a longer period (30 days) than standard ME against B. zonata. These results of the present study are highly in conformity with the results of Gomez and Coen [75] who documented that a formulation containing ME, cue-lure and a biodegradable wax carrier proved significantly attractive while the same formulation admixed with toxicant proved highly effective in MAT (attract-and-kill system) for B. dorsalis and B. cucurbitae.
The efficiency of the pheromones and wax-based pheromone emulsions/formulations depend on the properties of the pheromone, physic-chemical properties of the waxes and other carriers used in the matrix of emulsion and techniques used for their dissemination in the field where so many abiotic factors like temperature, relative humidity and rainfall affect their efficiency [58]. The fruit damage can be significantly reduced when an efficient application technique or traps is used [80].
The third experiment was conducted to assess different implementation techniques of four waxes-based ME-emulsions which demonstrated maximum attractancy over a long period in Experiment-II. The efficacy of each wax base SRF varies with the application technique. This variation in the performance of application techniques for different aforementioned four SRFs may be attributed to the variation in the ability of each technique to protect the SRFs from exposure to heat, UV light, rain etc. During data collection, it was observed that YST technique exhibited more protection to the SRFs from these adverse factors as compared to other application techniques. The CanW-ME SRF (10% CanW + 90% ME), BW-ME SRF (20% BW + 80% ME) and CarW-ME SRF (10% CarW + 90% ME) proved more effective when applied by YST; while PW-ME SRF (10% PW + 90% ME) exhibited more effectiveness when applied using SBTW technique. Depending on their ability to protect the slow-release formulation against adverse external factors, protective measures offered by application techniques like YST, SBT, JPSM and SBTW may differ. Moreover, owing to its physical design, YST can offer better protection than SBTW and it may be able to provide different safety mechanisms. Such techniques may differ, affecting the efficacy of slow-release formulations due to factors such as temperature, UV exposure and humidity. The overall result of experiment shows that the orders of efficacy for application techniques for CanW-ME SRF (10% CanW + 90% ME), BW-ME SRF (20% BW + 80% ME), CarW-ME SRF (10% CarW + 90% ME) and PW-ME SRF (10% PW + 90% ME) were: YST > SBT > JPSM > SBTW; YST > SBTW > JPSM > SBT; YST > SBT W> JPSM > SBT; and SBTW > YST > SBT > JPSM. Khosravi et al. [6] evaluated different methods like Jute sacks, bucket method and spray method for application of pheromone base formulation (7% ME + 7% technical malathion) in a management program of B. zonata for successive two years and their results revealed that soaking 8–10 layers of jute sacks, bucket trap and spray method proved more effective in controlling B. zonata. These results contradict the findings of the present study. These variations in results may be attributed to the difference in formulation. They have used insecticides-based ME formulation while wax-based SRFs of ME were used in present study. However, the results of third experiment cannot be compared and contradicted because information exactly on these lines of study is not available in the literature reviewed. There is a need to assess the performance of these SRFs in different ecological zones with varying climatic conditions as well as with more application techniques in order to provide sounder and more efficient recommendations against tephritid pests in various fruit orchards and vegetable crops.

5. Conclusions

A promising result has been obtained through field trials evaluating the slow-release wax formulations to control B. zonata in agriculture, with important implications for sustainable agricultural pest management. SRF-9[CanW] and SRF-9[CarW] have been found to be among the most efficient tools of attracting and controlling B. zonata flies in a number of different wax formulation tests. In particular, the CarW 10% + ME 90% was consistently characterized by high attractiveness throughout the course of the year making it a good option for controlling pests during the whole year. The most efficient application method was identified to be YST, which have been shown to outperform the methods used in earlier studies. The findings offer a breakthrough in the fight against environmentally unfriendly pests that can reduce reliance on chemical pesticides, as well as promote healthy farming practices. In order to increase effectiveness and adoption in agriculture, further research should explore the long-term impact of these formulations on pest management, crop yields and ecological health as well as consider scaling up and integrating them into Integrated Pest Management program.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.D.G., W.A.N., M.A.F. and A.A.; methodology, W.A.N., B.A., M.A., M.D.G. and A.A.; software, I.U.H., M.S., N.A.B., A.A.H. and M.A.A.A.; validation, M.D.G. and M.A.F.; formal analysis, N.A.B., M.S., A.A.H. and B.A.; investigation, M.A.A.A., I.U.H. and M.A.; resources, M.D.G.; data curation, A.A., M.S., I.U.H. and M.A.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.D.G., A.A., N.A.B., A.A.H., M.A.A.A. and M.A.F.; writing—review and editing, I.U.H., B.A., M.S., M.A. and W.A.N.; visualization, M.D.G. and M.A.F.; supervision, M.D.G.; project administration, W.A.N.; funding acquisition, A.A.H., N.A.B., M.A.A.A. and A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the Researchers supporting project number (RSP2023R229) King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their appreciation to the Researchers supporting project number (RSP2023R229) King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Gogi, M.D.; Ashfaq, M.; Arif, M.J.; Khan, M.A. Screening of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia) germplasm for sources of resistance against melon fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) in Pakistan. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2009, 11, 746–750. [Google Scholar]
  2. El-Gendy, I. Host preference of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae), under laboratory conditions. J. Entomol. 2017, 14, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Choudhary, J.S.; Mali, S.S.; Naaz, N.; Mukherjee, D.; Moanaro, L.; Das, B.; Singh, A.; Rao, M.S.; Bhatt, B. Predicting the population growth potential of Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) using temperature development growth models and their validation in fluctuating temperature condition. Phytoparasitica 2020, 48, 100277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sookar, P.; Alleck, M.; Ahseek, N.; Bhagwant, S. Sterile male peach fruit flies, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae), as a potential vector of the entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin in a SIT programme. Afr. Entomol. 2014, 22, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Khan, R.A.; Naveed, M. Occurrence and seasonal abundance of fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata Saunders (Diptera: Tephritidae) in relation to meteorological factors. Pak. J. Zool. 2017, 49, 999–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Khosravi, M.; Sahebzadeh, N.; Kolyaie, R.; Mokhtari, A. Field evalution of controling methods of mango fruit flies Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in the southern part of Iran. Trakia J. Sci. 2018, 1, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Coelho, J.B.; Uchoa, M.A. Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritoidea) and parasitoids (Hymenoptera) associated with native fruit trees in the Chaco Biome. Neotrop. Entomol. 2023, 52, 629–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Badii, K.B.; Billah, M.K.; Afreh-Nuamah, K.; Obeng-Ofori, D.; Nyarko, G. Review of the pest status, economic impact and management of fruit-infesting flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 10, 1488–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mahmoud, M.E.; Mohamed, S.A.; Ndlela, S.; Azrag, A.G.; Khamis, F.M.; Bashir, M.A.; Ekesi, S. Distribution, relative abundance, and level of infestation of the invasive peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) and its associated natural enemies in Sudan. Phytoparasitica 2020, 48, 589–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kawashita, T.; Rajapakse, G.; Tsuruta, K. Population surveys of Bactrocera fruit flies by lure trap in Sri Lanka. Res. Bull. Plant Prot. Serv. 2004, 40, 297–299. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kunprom, C.; Sopaladawan, P.N.; Pramual, P. Population genetics and demographic history of guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta (Diptera: Tephritidae) in northeastern Thailand. Eur. J. Entomol. 2015, 112, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hossain, M.; Momen, M.; Uddin, M.; Khan, S.; Howlader, A. Abundance of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) in mango orchard. Bangladesh J. Entomol. 2017, 27, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  13. Al-Eryan, M.; El-Minshawy, A.; Awad, A. Suppression program of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)(Diptera: Tephritidae) depend on male annihilation and bait application techniques in northern coast of Egypt. Acta Sci. Agric. 2018, 2, 92–98. [Google Scholar]
  14. Nisar, M.J.; Gogi, M.D.; Arif, M.J.; Sahi, S.T. Attraction and retention-period of different stuffs and stuffing techniques with their active food baits for the management of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2020, 40, 599–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kakar, M.Q.; Ullah, F.; Saljoqi, A.; Ahmad, S.; Ali, I. Determination of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestation in guava, peach and bitter gourd orchards in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Sarhad J. Agric. 2014, 30, 241–246. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kwasi, W. Assessment of fruit fly damage and implications for the dissemination of management practices for mango production in the upper west region of Ghana. J. Dev. Sustain. Agric. 2009, 3, 117–134. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mugure, C.M. Economic Assessment of Losses Due to Fruit Fly Infestation in Mango and the Willingness to Pay for an Integrated Pest Management Package in Embu District, Kenya; University of Nairobi: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  18. Quinlan, M. Trends in international phytosanitary standards: Potential impact on fruit fly Control. In Proceedings of the 6th International Fruit Fly Symposium, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 6–10 May 2002; pp. 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chen, P.; Ye, H. Population dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) and analysis of factors influencing populations in Baoshanba, Yunnan, China. Entomol. Sci. 2007, 10, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Blaser, S.; Heusser, C.; Diem, H.; Von Felten, A.; Gueuning, M.; Andreou, M.; Boonham, N.; Tomlinson, J.; Müller, P.; Utzinger, J. Dispersal of harmful fruit fly pests by international trade and a loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay to prevent their introduction. Geospat. Health 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kibira, M.; Affognon, H.; Njehia, B.; Muriithi, B.; Mohamed, S.; Ekesi, S. Economic evaluation of integrated management of fruit fly in mango production in Embu County, Kenya. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2015, 10, 343–353. [Google Scholar]
  22. Manrakhan, A. Pre-harvest management of the oriental fruit fly. CAB Rev. 2020, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. FAO. Systems approach for pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae). IPPC 2012, 35, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  24. Böckmann, E.; Köppler, K.; Hummel, E.; Vogt, H. Bait spray for control of European cherry fruit fly: An appraisal based on semi-field and field studies. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Dias, N.P.; Zotti, M.J.; Montoya, P.; Carvalho, I.R.; Nava, D.E. Fruit fly management research: A systematic review of monitoring and control tactics in the world. Crop Prot. 2018, 112, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Richards, M.; Pham, B.; Roe, P.; Clarke, A. Towards continuous surveillance of fruit flies using sensor networks and machine vision. In Proceedings of the 2009 5th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Beijing, China, 24–26 September 2009; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  27. Stringer, L.D.; Soopaya, R.; Butler, R.C.; Vargas, R.I.; Souder, S.K.; Jessup, A.J.; Woods, B.; Cook, P.J.; Suckling, D.M. Effect of lure combination on fruit fly surveillance sensitivity. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Drew, R.A.; Prokopy, R.J.; Romig, M.C. Attraction of fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera to colored mimics of host fruit. Entomol. Exp. Et Appl. 2003, 107, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Siddiqi, A.; Jilani, G.; Kanvil, S. Effect of turmeric extracts on settling response and fecundity of peach fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pak. J. Zool. 2006, 38, 131–135. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pereira, R.; Yuval, B.; Liedo, P.; Teal, P.; Shelly, T.; McInnis, D.; Hendrichs, J. Improving sterile male performance in support of programmes integrating the sterile insect technique against fruit flies. J. Appl. Entomol. 2013, 137, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gogi, M.D.; Arif, M.J.; Arshad, M.; Khan, M.A.; Bashir, M.H.; Zia, K. Impact of Sowing Times, Plant-to-Plant Distances, Sowing Methods and Sanitation on Infestation of Melon Fruit Fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae) and Yield Components of Bitter Gourd (Momordica charantia). Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2014, 16, 521–528. [Google Scholar]
  32. Iqbal, M.; Gogi, M.D.; Arif, M.J.; Javed, N. Attraction of melon fruit flies, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) to various protein and ammonia sources under laboratory and field conditions. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 57, 1107–1116. [Google Scholar]
  33. Nisar, M.J.; Gogi, M.D.; Arif, M.J.; Sahi, S.T. Toxicity and chemosterility impact of insect growth regulators baited diet on adult peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 57, 1089–1099. [Google Scholar]
  34. Haider, S.A.H.; Khan, R.R. Determination of level of insecticide resistance in fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) by bait bioassay. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2011, 5, 815–818. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nadeem, M.K.; Ahmed, S.; Ashfaq, M.; Sahi, S.T. Evaluation of resistance to different insecticides against field populations of Bactrocera zonata (Saunders)(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Multan, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2012, 44, 495–501. [Google Scholar]
  36. El-Gendy, I.; Nasr, H.; Badawy, M.; Rabea, E. Toxic and biochemical effects for certain natural compounds on the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Diptera, Tephritidae). Am. J. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2014, 4, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Carvalho, F.P. Agriculture, pesticides, food security and food safety. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gogi, M.D.; Ashfaq, M.; Arif, M.J.; Khan, M.A.; Ahmad, F. Coadministration of insecticides and butanone acetate for its efficacy against melon fruit flies, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Insects: Diptera: Tephritidae). Pak. Entomol. 2007, 29, 111–116. [Google Scholar]
  39. Aktar, M.W.; Sengupta, D.; Chowdhury, A. Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdiscip. Toxicol. 2009, 2, 1. [Google Scholar]
  40. Jin, T.; Zeng, L.; Lin, Y.; Lu, Y.; Liang, G. Insecticide resistance of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae), in mainland China. Pest Manag. Sci. 2011, 67, 370–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Craddock, H.A.; Huang, D.; Turner, P.C.; Quirós-Alcalá, L.; Payne-Sturges, D.C. Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States, 1999–2015. Environ. Health 2019, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khoo, C.C.-H.; Yuen, K.-H.; Tan, K.-H. Attraction of female Bactrocera papayae to sex pheromone components with two different release devices. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26, 2487–2496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tan, K.-h. Sex pheromone components in defense of melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae against Asian house gecko, Hemidactylus frenatus. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26, 697–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Welter, S.; Pickel, C.; Millar, J.; Cave, F.; Van Steenwyk, R.; Dunley, J. Pheromone mating disruption offers selective management options for key pests. Calif. Agric. 2005, 59, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hummel, H.E.; Langner, S.; Breuer, M. Electrospun Mesofibers, A novel biodegradable pheromone dispenser technology, are combined with mechanical deployment for efficient IPM of Lobesia botrana in vineyards. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2015, 80, 331–341. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wyatt, T.D. Pheromones: Stink Fights in Lemurs. Curr. Biol. 2020, 30, R1373–R1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lucchi, A.; Ladurner, E.; Iodice, A.; Savino, F.; Ricciardi, R.; Cosci, F.; Conte, G.; Benelli, G. Eco-friendly pheromone dispensers—A green route to manage the European grapevine moth? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 9426–9442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Knodel, J.J.; Petzoldt, C.P.; Hoffmann, M.P. Pheromone Traps–Effective Tools for Monitoring Lepidopterous Insect Pests of Sweet Corn; New York State IPM Program: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1995; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/43288 (accessed on 11 September 2023).
  49. Wyatt, T.D. Pheromones and behavior. In Chemical Communication in Crustaceans; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 23–38. [Google Scholar]
  50. Kovanci, O.B.; Schal, C.; Walgenbach, F.; Kennedy, G.G. Effects of pheromone loading, dispenser age, and trap height on pheromone trap catches of the oriental fruit moth in apple orchards. Phytoparasitica 2006, 34, 252–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hasnain, M.; Babar, T.K.; Karar, H.; Nadeem, M.K.; Nadeem, S.; Ahmad, S.F.; Ishfaq, M. Changes in Height of Pheromone Traps Affect the Capture of Male Fruit fly, Bactrocera spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Environ. Agric. Sci. 2017, 10, 33–39. [Google Scholar]
  52. Suheri, M.; Haneda, N.; Jung, Y.; Sukeno, S.; Moon, H. Effectiveness of pheromone traps for monitoring Zeuzera sp. (Lepidoptera: Cossidae) population on Eucalyptus pellita plantation. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, Changchun, China, 21–23 August 2020; p. 012016. [Google Scholar]
  53. Atterholt, C.; Delwiche, M.; Rice, R.; Krochta, J. Study of biopolymers and paraffin as potential controlled-release carriers for insect pheromones. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 4429–4434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Heath, R.R.; Lavallee, S.G.; Schnell, E.; Midgarden, D.G.; Epsky, N.D. Laboratory and field cage studies on female-targeted attract-and-kill bait stations for Anastrepha suspensa (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pest Manag. Sci. Former. Pestic. Sci. 2009, 65, 672–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. White, I.M.; Elson-Harris, M.M. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  56. Beroza, M.; Green, N. Materials Tested as Insect Attractants. USDA-ARS Agriculture Handbook No. 239; US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1963. [Google Scholar]
  57. Cork, A. Pheromone Manual; Natural Resources Institute: Gillingham, UK, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  58. Heuskin, S.; Verheggen, F.J.; Haubruge, E.; Wathelet, J.-P.; Lognay, G. The use of semiochemical slow-release devices in integrated pest management strategies. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2011, 15, 459–470. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zisopoulou, S.A.; Chatzinikolaou, C.K.; Gallos, J.K.; Ofrydopoulou, A.; Lambropoulou, D.A.; Psochia, E.; Bikiaris, D.N.; Nanaki, S.G. Synthesis of Dacus Pheromone, 1, 7-Dioxaspiro [5.5] Undecane and Its Encapsulation in PLLA Microspheres for Their Potential Use as Controlled Release Devices. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cardé, R.T.; Bell, W.J. Chemical Ecology of Insects; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  61. Allison, J.D.; CardŽ, R.T. Pheromone Communication in Moths: Evolution, Behavior, and Application; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. Blomquist, G.J.; Vogt, R.G. Biosynthesis and detection of pheromones and plant volatiles—Introduction and overview. In Insect Pheromone Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  63. Damos, P.; Colomar, L.A.E.; Ioriatti, C. Integrated Fruit Production and Pest Management in Europe: The Apple Case Study and How Far We Are From the Original Concept? Insects 2015, 6, 626–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Amiri, S.; Rezazadeh-Bari, M.; Alizadeh-Khaledabad, M. New formulation of vitamin C encapsulation by nanoliposomes: Production and evaluation of particle size, stability and control release. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 28, 423–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Đorđević, V.; Balanč, B.; Belščak-Cvitanović, A.; Lević, S.; Trifković, K.; Kalušević, A.; Kostić, I.; Komes, D.; Bugarski, B.; Nedović, V. Trends in encapsulation technologies for delivery of food bioactive compounds. Food Eng. Rev. 2015, 7, 452–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Prasad, S.; Cody, V.; Saucier-Sawyer, J.K.; Fadel, T.R.; Edelson, R.L.; Birchall, M.A.; Hanlon, D.J. Optimization of stability, encapsulation, release, and cross-priming of tumor antigen-containing PLGA nanoparticles. Pharm. Res. 2012, 29, 2565–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Jang, E.B. Physiology of mating behavior in mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): Chemoreception and male accessory gland fluids in female post-mating behavior. Fla. Entomol. 2002, 85, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Abu-Ragheef, A.H.; Al-Jassany, R.F. Study some biological aspects of peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in laboratory and field. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2018, 8, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pérez-Staples, D.; Abraham, S. Postcopulatory behavior of tephritid flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2023, 68, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Benelli, G.; Giunti, G.; Canale, A.; Messing, R.H. Lek dynamics and cues evoking mating behavior in tephritid flies infesting soft fruits: Implications for behavior-based control tools. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2014, 49, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Epsky, N.D.; Midgarden, D.; Rendón, P.; Villatoro, D.; Heath, R.R. Efficacy of wax matrix bait stations for Mediterranean fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Zada, A.; Falach, L.; Byers, J.A. Development of sol–gel formulations for slow release of pheromones. Chemoecology 2009, 19, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mishra, A.; Saini, R.K.; Bajpai, A.K. Polymer Formulations for Pesticide Release. In Controlled Release of Pesticides for Sustainable Agriculture; K. R., R., Thomas, S., Volova, T., K., J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Segura, D.F.; Belliard, S.A.; Vera, M.T.; Bachmann, G.E.; Ruiz, M.J.; Jofre-Barud, F.; Fernández, P.C.; López, M.L.; Shelly, T.E. Plant chemicals and the sexual behavior of male tephritid fruit flies. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2018, 111, 239–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gomez, L.E.; Coen, C.E. Insect Attractant Formulations and Insect Control; International Application Published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Washington, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  76. Atterholt, C.; Delwiche, M.; Rice, R.; Krochta, J. Controlled release of insect sex pheromones from paraffin wax and emulsions. J. Control Release 1999, 57, 233–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Yoon, J.Y.; Kim, D.E.; Im, U.; Lee, J.S.; Yang, C.Y.; Kim, J.-D. Efficacy test of mating disruptors against peach fruit moth, Grapholita molesta, using polypropylene dispenser containing ester wax. Korean J. Appl. Entomol. 2015, 54, 369–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yoon, J.Y.; Yang, C.Y.; Kim, J.-D. Sustainable delivery of a sex pheromone with an ester wax to disrupt Grapholita molesta mating. Macromol. Res. 2017, 25, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Wiseman, P.M. Surface Property Modification Via Wax Emulsions. Surface Phenomena and Fine Particles in Water-Based Coatings and Printing Technology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991; pp. 109–116. [Google Scholar]
  80. Navarro, S. Modified atmospheres for the control of stored-product insects and mites. In Insect Management for Food Storage and Processing; AACC International: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2006; pp. 105–146. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 14470 g001
Figure 1. Preparation of slow-release formulations of biodegradable waxes.
Figure 1. Preparation of slow-release formulations of biodegradable waxes.
Sustainability 15 14470 g001
Sustainability 15 14470 g002
Figure 2. Layout of the experiments (Experiment-I. Experiment-II and Experiment-III).
Figure 2. Layout of the experiments (Experiment-I. Experiment-II and Experiment-III).
Sustainability 15 14470 g002
Sustainability 15 14470 g003
Figure 3. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different slow-release formulations containing various concentrations of Lanolin wax, Candelilla wax, Bees wax, Carnauba wax and Paraffin wax with methyl eugenol. Means sharing similar style letters don’t differ significantly at a probability level of 5%.
Figure 3. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different slow-release formulations containing various concentrations of Lanolin wax, Candelilla wax, Bees wax, Carnauba wax and Paraffin wax with methyl eugenol. Means sharing similar style letters don’t differ significantly at a probability level of 5%.
Sustainability 15 14470 g003
Sustainability 15 14470 g004
Figure 4. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different highly attracted slow-release formulations. Means sharing similar style letters don’t differ significantly at a probability level of 5%.
Figure 4. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different highly attracted slow-release formulations. Means sharing similar style letters don’t differ significantly at a probability level of 5%.
Sustainability 15 14470 g004
Sustainability 15 14470 g005
Figure 5. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different application techniques of highly attracted slow-release formulations. Means sharing similar style letters don’t differ significantly at a probability level of 5%.
Figure 5. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different application techniques of highly attracted slow-release formulations. Means sharing similar style letters don’t differ significantly at a probability level of 5%.
Sustainability 15 14470 g005
Sustainability 15 14470 g006
Figure 6. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in highly attracted slow-release formulations.
Figure 6. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in highly attracted slow-release formulations.
Sustainability 15 14470 g006
Sustainability 15 14470 g007
Figure 7. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different application techniques.
Figure 7. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different application techniques.
Sustainability 15 14470 g007
Sustainability 15 14470 g008
Figure 8. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different application techniques of different highly attracted slow-release formulations.
Figure 8. Population of Bactrocera zonata captured per trap per day (Means ± SE) in different application techniques of different highly attracted slow-release formulations.
Sustainability 15 14470 g008
Table 1. Ratios at which biodegradable waxes was mixed with methyl eugenol to prepare slow-release formulations against B. zonata.
Table 1. Ratios at which biodegradable waxes was mixed with methyl eugenol to prepare slow-release formulations against B. zonata.
TreatmentsLWCanWBWCarWPW
SRF-1LW 90% + ME 10%CanW 90% + ME 10%BW 90% + ME 10%CarW 90% + ME 10%PW 90% + ME 10%
SRF-2LW 80% + ME 20%CanW 80% + ME 20%BW 80% + ME 20%CarW 80% + ME 20%PW 80% + ME 20%
SRF-3LW 70% + ME 30%CanW 70% + ME 30%BW 70% + ME 30%CarW 70% + ME 30%PW 70% + ME 30%
SRF-4LW 60% + ME 40%CanW 60% + ME 40%BW 60% + ME 40%CarW 60% + ME 40%PW 60% + ME 40%
SRF-5LW 50% + ME 50%CanW 50% + ME 50%BW 50% + ME 50%CarW 50% + ME 50%PW 50% + ME 50%
SRF-6LW 40% + ME 60%CanW 40% + ME 60%BW 40% + ME 60%CarW 40% + ME 60%PW 40% + ME 60%
SRF-7LW 30% + ME 70%CanW 30% + ME 70%BW 30% + ME 70%CarW 30% + ME 70%PW 30% + ME 70%
SRF-8LW 20% + ME 80%CanW 20% + ME 80%BW 20% + ME 80%CarW 20% + ME 80%PW 20% + ME 80%
SRF-9LW 10% + ME 90%CanW 10% + ME 90%BW 10% + ME 90%CarW 10% + ME 90%PW 10% + ME 90%
Table 2. Different classes of Attractancy index described by Beroza and Green [56].
Table 2. Different classes of Attractancy index described by Beroza and Green [56].
ClassMale B. zonata
I>11
II11–50
III<50
I = Non or little attractive; II = Moderately attractive; III = Strongly attractive
Table 3. Attractive index regarding the attraction of B. zonata to the different slow-release formulations of various concentrations of waxes with methyl eugenol.
Table 3. Attractive index regarding the attraction of B. zonata to the different slow-release formulations of various concentrations of waxes with methyl eugenol.
TreatmentsLWCanWBWCarWPW
Attractive IndexClassAttractive IndexClassAttractive IndexClassAttractive IndexClassAttractive IndexClass
SRF-10.71I−66.67I−52.17I−70.73I−66.67I
SRF-220.54II−11.11I−42.86I−37.26I−70.73I
SRF-341.03II−55.56I−27.27I−55.56I−62.79I
SRF-426.00II−29.63I−6.06I−48.94I−55.56I
SRF-534.15II1.41I−2.94I−34.62I11.39II
SRF-643.50II0.00I−20.69I1.41I6.67I
SRF-749.71III15.66II18.60II−9.38I−40.00I
SRF-851.86II−12.90I49.27II10.25I22.22II
SRF-946.07II57.57III44.88II50.35III32.04II
Table 4. Attractive index regarding the attraction of B. zonata to different highly attracted slow-release formulations.
Table 4. Attractive index regarding the attraction of B. zonata to different highly attracted slow-release formulations.
TreatmentsFormulationAttractive IndexClass
SRF-1LW 30% + ME 70%−61.868I
SRF-2CanW 10% + ME 90%41.428II
SRF-3BW 20% + ME 80%20.986II
SRF-4CarW 10% + ME 90%12.878II
SRF-5PW 10% + ME 90%32.052II
Table 5. Attractive Index regarding the attraction of B. zonata to different application techniques at various concentrations of waxes with methyl eugenol.
Table 5. Attractive Index regarding the attraction of B. zonata to different application techniques at various concentrations of waxes with methyl eugenol.
Application TechniqueCanW 10% + ME 90%BW 20% + ME 80%CarW 10% + ME 90%PW 10% + ME 90%
Attractive IndexClassAttractive IndexClassAttractive IndexClassAttractive IndexClass
SBT27.4166II−21.4798I38.8889II−11.562I
SBTW−17.3959I6.700594I50.11III53.6549III
YST32.2868II61.27442III69.7553III−4.0681I
JPSM−10.331I−19.6953I−36.392I−38.278I
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gogi, M.D.; Naveed, W.A.; Abbasi, A.; Atta, B.; Farooq, M.A.; Subhan, M.; Haq, I.U.; Asrar, M.; Bukhari, N.A.; Hatamleh, A.A.; et al. Field Evaluation of Slow-Release Wax Formulations: A Novel Approach for Managing Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Sustainability 2023, 15, 14470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914470

AMA Style

Gogi MD, Naveed WA, Abbasi A, Atta B, Farooq MA, Subhan M, Haq IU, Asrar M, Bukhari NA, Hatamleh AA, et al. Field Evaluation of Slow-Release Wax Formulations: A Novel Approach for Managing Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Sustainability. 2023; 15(19):14470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914470

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gogi, Muhammad Dildar, Waleed Afzal Naveed, Asim Abbasi, Bilal Atta, Muhammad Asif Farooq, Mishal Subhan, Inzamam Ul Haq, Muhammad Asrar, Najat A. Bukhari, Ashraf Atef Hatamleh, and et al. 2023. "Field Evaluation of Slow-Release Wax Formulations: A Novel Approach for Managing Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae)" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914470

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop