Mango Spraying for the Control of Fruit Flies in Khartoum State

Food Studies: an Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 2, Issue. 3, Pp. 9 – 20.

1

Mango Spraying for the Control of Fruit Flies in Khartoum State, Sudan

Esam Eldin B. M. Kabbashi1; Osman E. Nasr2, Sulafa K. Musa1 and Salah

Eldeen A. Ali3

1. Food Research Center, Ministry of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan.


2

2. Institute of Environment and Natural Resources, National Center for Research,

Ministry of Science and Technology, Khartoum, Sudan.

3. National Chemical Laboratories, Federal Ministry of Health, Khartoum, Sudan.

Abstract


3

Two insecticides viz. Aim® 10% [α – cypermethrin 10% {Cyano(3 –

phenoxyphenyl) methyl 3 – (2, 2 – dichloroethenyl) – 2, 2 – dimethyl –

cyclopropanecaboxylate}] and Brigade® [entomopathogenic fungi insecticide

contains 1 X 109 spores of three entomopathogenic fungi (Beauveria bassiana,

Metahrizium anisopliae and Verticillium lecanii)] were sprayed at three dose rates

to control fruit flies on two mango cultivars (Dr. Knight and Dibsha)


4

for two seasons (2009 and 2010). Three sites were sprayed in 2009 [viz.

Kadaro (30 Km North of Khartoum centre); Elbagair (50 Km South of

Khartoum centre) and Elsaggay (50 Km North of Khartoum centre)],

however, only Kadaro mangoes were sprayed in 2010. The results obtained

reflected that both insecticides, at all dose rates used, significantly

reduced fruit fly infestation in mango fruits of both cultivars sprayed


5

and in the two test seasons at Kadaro, whereas no infestation was

reported in the other two sites in both sprayed and the untreated

control mangoes. This phenomenon may be attributed to the absence of

guava trees in those areas which considered as a reservoir for about

four fruit flies species (three Ceratitis spp. and Bactrocera invadens Drew

Trusta and White) and a coleopteran (Carpophilus hemipterus L.). However,


6

the residue analyses for Aim® 10% revealed zero and figures far less than

the safety level recommended in the Codex Alimentarius (0.2 ppm). The

outcome of this experiment advocates using such insecticides for the

control of mango fruit flies and a safe mango production.


7

Keywords: Mango, Aim®, Brigade®, Fruit Flies, Residue.


8

Introduction

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is a tropical and subtropical fruit of

great importance economically and nutritionally. Mango is considered the

best fruit in the world market due to its excellent flavor, attractive

fragrance, beautiful color, delicious taste, and health giving

properties (FAO, 1999). The world production of mango in 1999 is 23.8


9

million metric tons (FAO, 1999). A number of insect pests and diseases

attack mango tree in Sudan. These were, generally, classified into

orchard and postharvest depending on the fruit stage. The orchard

diseases include pathogenic ones caused by microbes and physiological

disorders. Kabbashi (2004) reported the mango fruit fly (C. cosyra) for the

first time from mango in Sudan. He produced maggots of the mango fly


10

from fruits of different mango cultivars during the 1996/ '97 production

season. He collected adults from reared larvae in a laboratory at the

Gezira Research Station, Wad Medani, Sudan. These flies were identified,

at the Insect Taxonomy Unit, ARC, Wad Medani, Sudan, as Ceratitis cosyra

Walker, commonly known as the mango fruit fly. General surveys in

different states of Sudan showed that this insect has become a cause of


11

concern in Kassala, Sennar, the Blue Nile, Gezira and Khartoum States

(Map 1). Maggots of this species were also found in mango fruits sent

over from Juba (South Sudan). The local mango cultivars were more

tolerant to this pest than the exotic ones. Kabbashi (2000) reported,

Mediterranean fruit fly (Med fly) C. capitata, C. quinaria, the Rhodesian

fruit fly and the mango fruit fly (C. cosyra) from guava in Kassala


12

State. Kabbashi (2003) reported the mango fruit fly (C. cosyra) from guava

(P. guajava) fruits from Kabkabiyya, Mershing, and Elfashir from Darfur

(Western Sudan) (Map 1). In 2011 Salah et al. reported the occurrence of

Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) in three locations in Gezira state. Also she

found it in traps in Singa, Sennar State.


13

Fruit Flies Have Become a State of Concern

The fruit flies of mango were considered as national pests by the

authorities of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Sudan

in 2005. About one million USD allotted by the Ministry of Finance and

National economy for the control of these flies in 2008 (Abdelwahab,

personal communication)*. Quarantine authorities from some Arabic


14

countries requested their counterparts in Sudan to accelerate the

control measures of these flies. In Sudan efforts of control of fruit

flies attacking mango and guava include: Chemical control of C. capitata in

Shambat showed a significant difference among insecticides used.

Methidathion was comparatively the most effective, followed by carbaryl

and finally cypermethrin sprayed on guava for control of Ceratitis capitata


15

(Deng, 1990). Gobara et al. (2009) succeeded in recommending methyl eugenol

as a registered pheromone for B. invadens in Sudan. This chemical was

earlier studied by Mohamed (2008) and recommended it in the Sudanese

Pests and Diseases Committee but without been registered to the National

Pesticides Council. That is, the registration formalities of pesticides

in Sudan need a licensed company and Mohamed did that for research


16

purposes and to accelerate the introduction of this trapping pheromone

which was done later (Mohamed, personal meeting). * Omer Abdelwahab Ahmed, Personal interview with the author, January 7, 2005.

Map 1: Mango and Guava Fruit flies Map, Sudan and S. SudanCountries


17

?

N. Dafur? ??

A= Ceratitis cosyra C = Pardalspis quinaria

E = Bactrocera zonata

B = Ceratitis capitata D = Bactrocera invadens ? = Not yetKassaS. Darfur BlueNile

Khartoum ?A – E

? ??? A+???? ? ???

A, B, C,River A, B,C, DA- E

A – E SennaA, B,A A JubaA +? Gezir


18

However, the Federal Plant Protection Directorate and the State Plant

Protection Department, Khartoum, succeeded in adopting the use of methyl

eugenol in trapping thousands of B. invadens flies in orchards in Khartoum


19

State [Gobara and Tawfeeg (2010), personal communication**]. Tawfeeg

mentioned that the eugenol traps helped in consideration of mangoes

grown in Alshaab Scheme (Feki Hashim) as organic. This attractant when

used together with an insecticide impregnated into a suitable substrate

forms the basis of male annihilation technique. This technique has been

successfully used for the eradication and control of several Bactrocera


20

species (Cunningham, 1989). On the other hand, Roomi et al. (1993)

reported, among the various alternate strategies available for the

management of fruit flies, the use of methyl eugenol traps stands as the

most outstanding alternative. Methyl eugenol has both olfactory as well

as phagostimulatory action. However, this pheromone is both sex and

species specific i.e. it attracts only males of Bactrocera spp. That is, it


21

could be used as an element of IPM but not as a potent mean of control.

Kabbashi et al. (2007, 2009) studied a number of postharvest methods to

control fruit flies in guava fruits that include use of laser beam, use

of ultrasound and hot water treatment (HWT). They considered these

attempts as preliminary studies, i.e. a larger ultrasound machine, an

ultrasound device with special design are needed to achieve a good


22

verification and applicable recommendations in this respect. This is

also valid for the HWT, that is, they used HWST (Hot Water Short Time

treatment, 65°C and 70°C for five minutes which yielded 50% and 96%

control, respectively. However, in this study two insecticides were

selected based on two hypotheses: The first is that, some farmers prefer

using synthetic insecticides whose some persistence and complications


23

such as the higher than allowed residue levels and the high risk posed

to the users. However, pyrethroids can be considered as a good

alternative for these synthetics of which cypermethrin is widely known

as a soft insecticide with fewer hazards. The second hypothesis rely on

the organic production of fruits and this can be achieved by the use of

botanical, microbial and other natural insecticides which was


24

represented by a potent brand (mix of three microbes) Brigade®.

Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that this is the first attempt of

testing insecticides for the control of fruit flies in mango in Sudan.

Nonetheless, Schroeder and Soumah (2005) approved cypermethrin [Win

Cyper® 10%, chlorpyrifos – ethyl (Sarifos® or Aspia Cypercal® 12.5 – 30%]

and malathion (Win – Mal® 57%) for use on mangoes to control fruit flies.


25

The screening of entomopathogenic fungi included 7 isolates of Metarhizium

spp., 12 isolates of Beauveria spp. and one isolate of Hirsutella citriformis

against a fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) was performed in Lampang Research

Station, Thailand. The percentage of mortality was in a range of 2 – 68%

(Aemprapa, 2007). A field experiment at Palampur, India during 1999 –

2000 revealed that the synthetic pyrethroid treatments viz. deltamethrin


26

(37.5 g a.i./ ha), cypermethrin (75 g a.i./ ha) gave significantly less

fruit infestation by cucurbit fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae Coq.) up to

14 days of spray on summer squash compared to malathion (375 g a.i./ ha)

(Sood and Sharma, 2004). Grove et al. (2007) sprayed a number of

insecticides for the control of mango weevil that included carbaryl,

monocrotophos, dimethoate,


27

** Saniya, Mohamed Hassan Gubara and Suaad Tawfeeg, Personal talk to the author, Sep.

4, 2010.

deltamethrin, fenthion, fenvalerate, ethofenprox and some botanical and

animal origin insecticides. All reduced the infestation levels in a

range 3.3% – 14.8% compared to 33% infestation in the control. It is


28

worth to report that a mango coleopteran infestation was considered in

this study for the first time in Sudan.

Also it is reported that the careful use of cypermethrin under field

conditions does not put fish at risk and can be nontoxic (Worthing and

Walker, 1983). Cypermethrin at 50 ml/100 li water provides good

protection against the mango weevil. Fenvalerate and Carbaryl are also


29

effective against the pest. The insecticide should be applied at 14 days

interval from fruit set to full development of the fruits (HVCC, 2001).

On the other hand Brigade® is a biological insecticide recommended for

organic agriculture. In Sudan a lot of brands of cypermethrin were

recommended for the control of insect pests of agricultural crops e.g.

Ripcord®, Polytrin® etc… while Brigade® was used later in some crops to


30

control insect pests. e.g. (Elnour et al., 2008,) recommended Brigade®

at a rate of 625 g/ fed. (100 L water are recommended / feddan, 1 fd =

4200 m2) for the control of whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) and the African

boll worm (Helicoverpa armegira Hübner) in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.).

The literature mentioned supports the suitability of Aim® 10% and

Brigade® for the control of fruit flies in mango. Fly – to – fly


31

transmission of conidia of the entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae

and the effect of fungal infection on the reproductive potential of

females surviving infection were investigated in three fruit fly

species, Ceratitis cosyra, C. fasciventris, and C. capitata. The number of conidia

picked up by a single fruit fly was determined in C. cosyra. The initial

uptake (Day 0) of conidia by a single fly was approx. 1.1 × 106 conidia


32

after exposure to the treated substrate. However, the number of conidia

dropped from 7.2 × 105 to 4.1 × 105 conidia after 2 and 8 h post –

exposure, respectively. The number of conidia picked up by a single

fungus – treated fly (donor) varied between 3.8 × 105 and 1.0 × 106 in

the three fruit fly species, resulting in 100% mortality 5 – 6 days post

– exposure. When fungus – free flies of both sexes (recipient flies)


33

were allowed to mate with (donor) flies the number of conidia picked by

a single fly varied between 1.0 × 105 and 2.5 × 105, resulting in a

mortality of 83 – 100% in C. capitata, 72 – 85% in C. cosyra and 71– 93% in C.

fasciventris 10 – 15 days post – inoculation. There was an effect of fungal

infection on female egg laying in the three species of fruit flies as

control flies laid more eggs than fungus-treated females. The percentage


34

reduction in fecundity in flies infected with M. anisopliae was 82, 73 and

37% in C. capitata, C. fasciventris and C. cosyra, respectively. The results are

discussed with regard to application in autodissemination techniques

(Dimbi et al., 2013). However, Fruit fly control requires a combination

of management strategies. Management components such as the use of

biological control (parasitoids and entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium


35

anisopliae), cultural control (orchard sanitation, use of augmentorium),

baiting techniques (mazoferm, Nulure and Hymlure) and male annihilation

technique (MAT) have been recommended for fruit fly suppression within

an IPM context (Ekesi and Billah, 2007; Ndiaye et al., 2008).

However, the spraying of mango can be applied with recommended

insecticides, yet several sprays can be taken with botanical and organic


36

ones i.e. whenever economically feasible. However, the residue analysis

results performed in this study revealed that Aim® can be used

effectively at low doses, that economizes the process, and by one spray

for the mentioned purpose without any risk on human health. By so doing

options are made available for the farmers and may be able to combat the

risk of fruit fly infestation and the residue problems in mango as well.


37

Moreover, the literature displayed supports the suitability of Aim® 10% and

Brigade® for the control of fruit flies in mango. However, the spraying of

mango can be once with potent insecticides, yet several sprays can be taken

with botanical and organic ones i.e. whenever economic without reservations.


38

Objectives of this Study

The objectives of this study include the following

Test the suitability of soft insecticides (e.g. Aim®) for the

control of mango fruit flies.

Test the efficacy of biological insecticides (e.g. Brigade®) for

fruit fly control in mangoes.


39

Test the efficacy of early season one insecticide spray in the

control of fruit flies in mangoes.

Test the residue of some chemical insecticides in the market

product of sprayed mangoes.

Making availability of some important IPM elements of mango fruit

flies and organic production.


40

Methodologies

This experiment was taken at four different locations (the main

mango production areas in Khartoum and its southern territories) and two

seasons (2009 and 2010). The locations included 1. Mohamed Osman Salih

Orchard at Elbagair (50 Km south Khartoum centre) 2. Mohamed Osman Ood


41

Ellayl orchard at Kadaro (30 Km North Khartoum Centre) and 3. Mohamed

Osman Ood Ellayl orchard at Saggay (50 Km North Khartoum centre) and 4.

Feki Hashim (40 Km North Khartoum center) (Map 2). Three trees were

randomly selected for spraying from two different cultivars (a sum of

six for each treatment) with another three corresponding trees from the

same cultivars (a sum of six for each treatment) as control. These


42

selected areas are the main production areas of mango in Khartoum state

(Kadaro, Saggay and Feki Hashim) and in the most northern periphery of

Gezira state (Bagair) which is a known mango production area too.

The two insecticides used were selected on the basis of (1) Soft

insecticide that has low toxicity and least risk to non – targets

including man (e.g. Aim®10%, α – cypermethrin 10% {Cyano(3 –


43

phenoxyphenyl) methyl 3 – (2, 2 – dichloroethenyl) – 2, 2 – dimethyl –

cyclopropanecaboxylate}) i.e. it is a cypermethrin which is a synthetic

pyrethroid and (2) Natural and biological insecticide as for Brigade®

composed of three fungi ((Beauveria bassiana, Metahrizium anisopliae and Verticillium

lecanii) which suits organic agriculture. The spraying economies are

feasible and of high safety for being only once. The selected


44

concentrations were based on the recommendations of the producing

company and their agents in Sudan. Two mango cultivars were sprayed

which included Dr. Knight and Dibsha at Kadaro, Dr. Knight, Taymour,

Abusamaka, and Alphonso at Elbagair, and Abusamaka and Alphonso at

Saggay (Map 2). Some mango infestation was also checked in Feki Hashim

(40 Km North Khartoum center).


45


46

Ten fruits from each tree were examined after week storage for fruit fly

maggots. However, this number was five for Dibsha which has a very big

fruit that may weigh ≥ 0.5 kg. The examination of the fruits for maggots

was by eye and sometimes with lens to visualize the minute worms. The

worms were submerged in a bowel of water using a needle or a forceps.


47

Residue Analysis

Three fruits were taken randomly from Dr. Knight trees sprayed with

50g/ 100L, 37.5g/ 100L water and 25g/ 100L water Aim® 10%, three month

post spraying (a total of nine fruits) and at the onset of ripening.

Nine eluants (three from each sample) were tested in this experiment

(SiEi, S= sample and i = 1, 2 and 3), separately.


48

The extraction

The extraction was done using acetonitrile partitioning into

petroleum ether method (Mills et al., 1963 and Porter et al. 1967) according

to the Codex Alimentarius (FAO/ WHO, 2000).


49

The Clean up

The residues in solution are separated from sample on a column of Florisil

adsorbent, eluants of increasing

polarity sequentially remove residues from the column (Mills et al., 1963).

(Mills et al., 1963). However, the following steps were followed in the


50

test sample clean up according to the Codex Alimentarius (FAO/ WHO,

2000):

1. The elutes were left to concentrate into 5 ml.

2. Each elute was passed through filter paper having charcoal powder

(BDH® England), which was a


51

3. decolourizing activated powder.

4. Each sample from the three treatments (5g, 3.75g and 2.5 g/ 100

water Aim® 10%) were washed three times with ethyl ether/ petroleum

ether (i.e. three elutes).


52

5. Each elute was automatically injected into a Gas Chromatography

Mass Spectrometer (GCMS, Shimadzu® - QP2010 Plus). It has the

following specifications, i. The column RX5 30m in length, ii. The

internal diameter (id) 0.25 nm, iii. Capillary column with EI

(electron impact) detection.

6. The insecticide residue was calculated as follows:


53

µg/ kg = (Ax) (Vt) (D)/ (Cf) (Vi) (WS) where, Sx = Sample x, Ex =

Elute x; Ax = Area (or height) of the peak analyte; Vt = Total

volume of the concentrated extract; D = Dilution factor, if no

dilution took place it was equal to 1; Cf = Mean calibration factor

from the initial calibration (Area/ ng); Vi = Volume of the extract

injected; WS = Weight of the sample


54

The calculations for the test samples were

S1E1 = 1118477 X 0.1 ppm/ 18192 X 62.16g = 0.098909 ppm

S2E1 = 1667411 X 0.1 ppm/ 18192 X 69.16 = 0.132528 ppm

S3E1 = 1347262 X 0.1 ppm/ 18192 X 71.31g = 0.103854 ppm

S3E2 = 300886 X 0.1 ppm/ 18192 X 71.31g = 0.023019 ppm


55

The other elutes viz. S1E2, S1E3, S2E2, S2E3 and S3E3 reflected no residue

in the graphs produced by the GCMS (Gas Chromatography Mass

Spectrometer).

The Statistical Analysis

The design used in this experiment was the CRBD (completely

randomized block design) for the mango experiment and the CRD


56

(completely randomized design) for the residue analysis. That is, the

CRBD suits the model of the experiment of mango spraying (the trees

represented the blocks and the fruits from each tree were replicates).

The selection of this design may be justified by the need for it to

increase the precision of the experimentation by minimizing the chance

error. Moreover, the CRD is experienced in the residue analysis in


57

taking the fruit samples. While the statistical analysis for the

infestation was done using the SPSS (Statistical Package for Social

Studies program). This statistical program is the most recommended for

the analysis in Sudan for being simple, proper and unique in the

interpretation of results for a variety of disciplines (Mohammed,

personal meeting)*.


58

Materials

Brigade® insecticide contains 1 X 109 spores of three entomopathogenic

fungi (Beauveria bassiana, Metahrizium anisopliae and Verticillium lecanii) and Aim® 10%

[α – cypermethrin 10%{Cyano(3 – phenoxyphenyl) methyl 3 – (2, 2 –

dichloroethenyl) – 2, 2 – dimethyl – cyclopropanecaboxylate}]. Both


59

chemicals were supplied by the Central Trading Company (CTC, Khartoum,

Sudan). Dissection tools (knives, needles, forceps, fine camel hair

brushes etc.). However, the following concentrations were sprayed, 5 g

(a.i.)/ 100L water [50 ml (Aim®10%)/ 100L], 3.75 g (a.i.)/ 100L water

[37.5 ml (Aim®10%)/ 100L) and 2.5g (a.i.)/ 100L water (25 ml (Aim®10%)/

100L). The Brigade® concentrations used were 1, 0.5 and 0.25 Kg/ 100L


60

water. Other materials included small stainless steel bowels, alcohol

thermometer, hygrometer, Semco® motorized sprayer and a magnifying glass

were all used in the experiments. However, the following chemicals were

used in the residue analysis experiment of Aim® 10% on sprayed mango

which included acetonitrile, petroleum ether (40 – 60°C), sodium

chloride, sodium sulphate anhydrous, florisil, diethyl ether, charcoal


61

powder besides electrical blender with a metallic jug (Waring commercial

blender®), glass columns, glass beakers, filter papers (Filter – lab®), α

– cypermethrin standard and Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometer (GCMS).

However, metallic tags with wires were used to show the details of the


62

* Maarouf Ibrahim Mohamed (Professor Dr. of fodder breeding and statistician).

Consulted in the designs of these experiments

and the statistical analysis through two years (2010 – 2012).

treatments. However, the cost/ tree was estimated at about 100 Sudanese

pound whereas as the rewards may exceed 3000 Sudanese pounds/ tree. The

benefit from spraying may be equal to the reduction in infestation.


63

Results and Discussion

The results of the first year (2009) of mango spraying (Kadaro) are

summarized in Table 1. Both the tested insecticides (Aim® & Brigade®) and

at the all doses used significantly reduced the fruit fly population in

mango fruits of the both cultivars sprayed, Dibsha & Dr. Knight.

However, the insecticide Brigade® performed better (i.e. no infestation for


64

all the tested doses for the two cultivars in 2009) than Aim® 10% (5g,

3.75g & 2.5g) that showed 13.33, 16.67 and 26.67 in case of Dibsha,

respectively. In case of Dr. Knight the corresponding infestations were

(6.67, 6.67 & 26.67%, respectively). The control showed 66.67% and

26.67% infestations for Dibsha and Dr. Knight, respectively (Table 1).

However, Brigade® was capable of completely disinfesting the fruits, of


65

both cultivars tested, from fruit flies in 2009 production season, while

in season 2010 the infestation reduction ranged 54 – 100% in Dibsha and

7 – 17% in Dr. Knight (Tables 1 & 2) as compared to the control.

Moreover, the results of the second season (2010) of spraying of mango

(Kadaro) are displayed in Table 2. The only main effect that showed

significance (at 0.05 level) is the insecticide dose. Both insecticides


66

were able to reduce mango infestation by fruit flies, in comparison to

the control, in a range of 40 – 53% for Dibsha in 2009, 16 – 20% for

Dr. Knight in 2009, 40% for Dibsha in 2010 and 17 – 33% for Dr.

Knight in 2010 for Aim® 10% (Tables 1 & 2). These results reflect the

potency of these two insecticides for use in an array of integrated Pest


67

management (IPM) of fruit flies in mango fruits. Similarly, Schroeder

and Soumah (2005) approved cypermethrin [Win Cyper® 10%, chlorpyrifos

– ethyl (Sarifos® or Aspia Cypercal® 12.5 – 30%] and malathion (Win –

Mal® 57%) for use on mangoes to

control fruit flies.


68

Table 1: % Infestation of mango sprayed by insecticides in season 2009

(Kadaro)

Insectici

de**1

Dose**2 Mean Infestation %Dibsha3 Dr. Knight3

Aim® 10% 5 g/ 100L water 13.33 6.673.75 g/ 100L water 16.67 6.67


69

2.5 g/ 100L water 26.67 10.00Control 66.67 26.67

Brigade® 1 Kg/ 100L water 0.00 0.000.5 Kg/ 100L water 0.00 0.00

0.25 Kg/ 100L

water

0.00 0.00


70

Control 33.33 16.67** Highly significant at 0.05. 1. Significance value = 0.01, 2. Significance value = 0.04 & 3. Significance

value (0.06)

Table 2: % Infestation of mango sprayed by insecticides in season 2010

(Kadaro)

Insectic Dose**2 Mean Infestation %Dibsha3 Dr. Knight3


71

ide1

Aim® 10% 5 g/ 100L water 0.00 0.003.75 g/ 100L water 0.00 10.002.5 g/ 100L water 0.00 16.67

Control 40.00 33.33Brigade® 1 Kg/ 100L water 0.00 6.67


72

0.5 Kg/ 100L water 0.00 10.000.25 Kg/ 100L

water

6.67 16.67

Control 60.00 23.33** Highly significant at 0.05.


73

The screening of entomopathogenic fungi included 7 isolates of Metarhizium

spp., 12 isolates of Beauveria spp. and one isolate of Hirsutella citriformis

against a fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) was performed in Lampang Research

Station, Thailand. The percentage of mortality was in a range of 2 – 68%

(Aemprapa, 2007). A field experiment at Palampur, India during 1999 –

2000 revealed that the synthetic pyrethroid treatments viz. deltamethrin


74

(37.5 g a.i./ ha), cypermethrin (75 g a.i./ ha) gave significantly less

fruit infestation by cucurbit fruit fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae Coq.) up to

14 days of spray on summer squash compared to malathion (375 g a.i./ ha)

(Sood and Sharma, 2004). Grove et al. (2007) sprayed a number of

insecticides for the control of mango weevil that included carbaryl,

monocrotophos, dimethoate, deltamethrin, fenthion, fenvalerate,


75

ethofenprox and some botanical and animal origin insecticides. All

reduced the infestation levels in a range 3.3% – 14.8% compared to 33%

infestation in the control. It is worth to report that a mango

coleopteran infestation was considered in this study for the first time

in Sudan.


76

It is worth mentioning that careful use of cypermethrin under field

conditions does not put fish at risk and can be nontoxic (Worthing and

Walker, 1983) and Brigade® is a biological insecticide recommended for

organic agriculture. In Sudan a lot of brands of cypermethrin were

recommended for the control of insect pests of agricultural crops e.g.

Ripcord®, Polytrin® etc… while Brigade® was used later in some crops to


77

control insect pests. e.g. (Elnour et al., 2008,) recommended Brigade®

at a rate of 625 g/ fed. (100 L water / feddan, 1 fd = 4200 m2) for the

control of whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Genn.) and the African boll worm

(Helicoverpa armegira Hübner) in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). The

literature mentioned supports the suitability of Aim® 10% and Brigade®

for the control of fruit flies in mango. However, the spraying of mango


78

can be applied with recommended insecticides, yet several sprays can be

taken with botanical and organic ones i.e. whenever economically feasible.

The residue analysis of Aim® 10% in mango was detected using Gas

Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS). The results of this analysis

are shown in Table 3. The residue reflected a range of


79

Table 3: Residue Analysis of Aim® 10% in Mango

Mango

Cultivar

Sample

No.

Elute

No.

Dose

sprayed

Residue

(ppm)

Codex

Max

Residue

(ppm)Dr. 1 1 5g 0.1 0.2


80

Knight a.i./100

L water1 2 5g

a.i./100

L water

0.0 0.2

1 3 5g 0.0 0.2


81

a.i./100

L water2 1 3.75g

a.i./100

L water

0.133 0.2

2 2 3.75g 0.0 0.2


82

a.i./100

L water2 3 3.75g

a.i./100

L water

0.0 0.2

3 1 2.5g 0.104 0.2


83

a.i./100

L water3 2 2.5g

a.i./100

L water

0.023 0.2

3 3 2.5g 0.0 0.2


84

a.i./100

L water

0 – 0.133 ppm. However, the allowed maximum residue recommended by the

Codex Alimentarius is 0.2 ppm in orange and peach fruits for all the

isomers of cypermethrin including α – cypermethrin (Aim® 10% is one of


85

its brand names) (FAO/ WHO, 2000). The residue of this test pyrethroid

was reported in the first elutes of samples 1, 2 and 3 and only the

second elute of sample 3. The summation of S3E1 + S3E2 equals 0.12 ppm which

is far less than the recommended level by the Codex Alimentarius (FAO/

WHO, 2000).


86

Last review of cypermethrin by the FAO/ WHO JMPR was in 1981 where ≤

0.05 mg/ kg was proposed as an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for man.

However, cypermethrin is a mixture of 70% (±) – trans and 30% (±) – cis

isomers (Büchel, 1983) whereas, eight possible chiral isomers were also

reported (e.g. alphacypermethrin) (Mc Lean et al., 2000). In this study

four peaks of this insecticide were observed in the graphs of the GCMS


87

which stands for four isomers of the tested insecticides. It is worth

reporting that no infestation was reported in sprayed and unsprayed

mangoes in two sites, Elbagair (50 Km South Khartoum) and Elsaggay (50

Km North Khartoum). This situation may be explained by the absence of

the guava trees in the proximity which is known as an all season

reservoir for four types of fruit flies two of which infest mango (viz. C.


88

cosyra and B. invadens) (Table 4). However, in Sudan the spacing between

the mango trees is ten meters and between guava trees is five meters.

Whereas, the spacing between mango and guava raws is about ten meters.

These estimates were calculated on the basis of the mango and guava

canopies. Moreover, it may be worth to report that fruit flies can

travel tens of kilometers.


89

Table 4: Fruit Fly Infestation of Mango in some Localities in Central

Sudan

Site Treatm

ent

Cultivar Dose sprayed Infesta

tion

(%)


90

Bagair 1 Taymour,

Abusamaka,

Alphonso and Dr.

Knight

Aim®* &

Brigade®**

0.00

2 Taymour,

Abusamaka,

No

insecticide

0.00


91

Alphonso, Dr.

Knight, Zibda,

Baladi, Ox heart,

Pairi, Baladi &

OthersSaggay 1 Abusamaka & Aim®* & 0.00


92

Alphonso Brigade®**

2 Abusamaka,

Alphonso, Zibda &

Others

No

insecticide

0.00

Kadaro 1 Dibsha & Dr. Aim®* & 0 – 33%


93

Knight Brigade®**

2 Dibsha & Dr.

Knight

No

insecticide

17 –

67% Feki

Hashim

1 Baladi,

Abusamaka, Dr.

Knight, Ox heart

No

insecticide

35 –

60%


94

& Zibda * Aim® (2.5, 3.75 & 5 g/ 100 L water)

**Brigade® (¼, ½/ & 1 Kg/ 100L water)


95

RecommendationsA dose of ¼ Kg Brigarde®/ 100 L water and 5 grams Aim®/ 100 L water can

be sprayed to check fruit flies in mango in Khartoum and Central Sudan.

This is supported by the residue results of one early season spray of 5

g/ 100 L water of Aim® which represents a safe level according to Codex

Alimentarius and the former insecticide represents a natural, suitable


96

and a great benefit for organic mango production. Moreover, test of

higher doses of Aim® 10% and lower doses of Brigade® in the future

research work may be of importance and may imply some economies.

However, the cost/ profit relationship, in this study, displays a wide

gap due to the lower cost of spraying operation as compared to the

revenue from selling the Sudanese mango locally or by export.


97

The mixed cropping of mango and guava trees must be avoided. That is,

guava is an alternative and all season reservoir for a number of fruit

fly species some of which infest mango too.

References


98

Aemprapa, S. (2007). Entomopathogenic fugi screening against fruit fly

in Thailand. KMITL Sci. Tech. J., Vol. 7 No. S2, Nov., 2007.

Büchel, K. H. (1983). Chemistry of Pesticides. A Wiley – interscience

publication, John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA. 518 pp.

Cunningham, R.T. (1989). Male annihilation. In: World Crop Pests, Eds.

Robinson, A.S. and Hooper, G. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.


99

Deng, A. L. (1990). Study on the behaviour, host range, seasonal

abundance and chemical control of the Mediterranean fruit fly

(Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann) in Sudan. M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty of

Agric., U. of K., Sudan.


100

Dimbi, S.; Maniania, N. K, and Ekesi, S. (2013). Horizontal transmission

of Metarhizium anisopliae in fruit flies and effect of fungal infection

on egg laying and fertility. Insects 2013, 4, 206 – 216.

Ekesi, S. and Billah, M. K. (2007). A Field guide to the management of

economically important tephritid fruit flies in Africa. The


101

International Centre Of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE).

ICIPE Science Press-Nairobi, Kenya.

Elnour, O. A.; Gameil, S. A.; Bakheit, T. N. and Omer, I. E. (2008).

Evaluation of Some insecticides against insect pests of tomato. A

proceeding of the 79th meeting of the National Pests and Diseases

Committee, ARC, Sudan.


102

FAO (1999). Food and agriculture production year book. FAO, Rome.

FAO/ WHO (2000). Pesticides residues in food. Volume 2A, part 2, Second edition.

Joint, FAO/ WHO standards programme, Codex Alimentarius

Commission.

Grove, T.; Joubert, P. H. and De Beer, M. S. (2007). Literature review

on mango weevil , Sternochetus mangiferae (Fabricius) (Coleoptera:


103

Curculionidae). South Africa Mango Growers Association Research Journal 27:

21 – 24.

Gobara, S.; Ahmed, J.; Bashir, Y. G. A.; Hussein, F.; Abu Elgasim, M.

and Mokhtar, A. (2009). Evaluation of para pheromone methyl

eugenol (ME) 95% TC for mass trapping of Bactrocera invadens (Diptera:


104

Tephritidae) in fruit trees. Proceedings of the Pests and Diseases Committee

No. 80, ARC, Wad Medani, Sudan.

HVCC. (2001). Mango, techno – Guide for Mango in The Philippines.

Kabbashi, E. B. M. (2000). An entomological survey in Kassal area.

Annual report 1999 – 2000.


105

Entomology section, Kassala Research Station, Agric. Res.

Corp., Sudan.

Kabbashi, E. B. M. (2003). An entomological survey in North Dafur State.

Annual Report 2002 – '03, Elfashir Res. Station, Agric. Res.

Corp., Sudan.


106

Kabbashi, E. B. M. (2004). A Note on the incidence of fruit fly Ceratitis

cosyra (Walker) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on mango in the Sudan. U. of K.

J. Agric. Sci, 12 (1), 51 – 54.

Kabbashi, E. B. M. and Yahia, S. M. S. (2007). Use of hot water in

disinfestation of guava fruits from Ceratitis flies. Annual Report

(2006 – '07). Food Research Centre, ARC, Sudan.


107

Kabbashi, E. B. M.; Farah, H. E.; Abd Elrahman, A. H. and Yahia, S. M.

S. (2007). Use of laser in disinfestation of guava (Psidium guajava

L.) fruits from Ceratitis flies. Annual Report (2006 – '07). Food

Research Centre, ARC, Sudan.

Kabbashi, E. B. M.; Abd Alla, M. D.; Yousif, M. M. and Mohamed, R. H.

(2009). Preliminary study of the effect of ultrasound on flies in


108

guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits. Annual report, Food Research

Centre, ARC, Sudan.

Mc Lean, J. G.; Boisseau, J.; Ellis and Herrman, J. L. (2000). Summary

and conclusions of the joint FAO/ WHO Expert committee on food

additives, fifty fourth meeting, Geneva, February, 2000.


109

Mills, P. A.et al. (1963). J. Assoc. off Agric. Chem. 46, 186 – 191. In: Pesticide

Analytical manual Vol. 1: 303 – 7.

Mohamed, A. H. (2008). Efficacy of Methyl eugenol as a lure for trapping

Bactrocera Invadens in mango orchards. Proceedings of the Pests and Diseases

Committee No. 79, ARC, Wad Medani, Sudan.


110

Ndiaye, M., Dieng, E. and Delhove, G. 2008. Population dynamics and on-

farm fruit fly integrated pest management in mango orchards in the

natural area of Niayes in Senegal. Pest Management in Horticultural

Ecosystems 14:1-8.

Porter et al. (1967). In: Pesticide Analytical manual Vol. 1: 303 – 7.


111

Roomi, M.W., Abbas, T., Shash, A.H., Robina, S., Qureshi, A.A., Sain,

S.S. and Nasir, K.A., 1993. Control of fruit flies (Dacus sp.) by

attractants of plant origin. Anzeiger fiir Schadlingskunde, Pflanzeschutz,

Umwelschutz, 66: 155-157.

Salah, F. E. E; Mohamed, H. A. and Marelize, De Villiers (2012). The

occurrence of the peach fruit fly,


112

Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Tephritidae) in fruit orchards in

Sudan. Abstracts of the regional

Symposium on the management of fruit flies in Near East countries.

Hammamet, Tunisia 6 – 8, November, 2012. Pp. 23.


113

Schroeder, A. and Soumah, K. O. (2005). Pesticide evaluation report and

safe use action plan (PERSUAP). GAMLA project, implemented by

chemonics, Guinea.

Sood, N. and Sharma, D.C. (2004). Bioefficiency of persistent toxicity

of different insecticides and neem derivatives against cucurbits


114

fruit fly (Bacrocera cucurbitae Coq.) on summer squash. Pesticide Research

Journal, 16 (2): 22 – 25.

Worthing, C. R. and Walker, S. B. (1983). The Pesticide manual, a world

Compendium. Pp. 151, 7th Edition The British Crop Protection Council

(BCPC).

Mango Spraying for the Control of Fruit Flies in Khartoum State

Documents

Transcript of Mango Spraying for the Control of Fruit Flies in Khartoum State