Next Article in Journal
Influence of Soldiers on Exploratory Foraging Behavior in the Formosan Subterranean Termite, Coptotermes formosanus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae)
Next Article in Special Issue
Insecticidal Properties of Erythritol on Four Tropical Tephritid Fruit Flies, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, Ceratitis capitata, Bactrocera dorsalis, and B. latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae)
Previous Article in Journal
Parthenogenetic Reproduction in Strumigenys Ants: An Update
Previous Article in Special Issue
Competition: A Missing Component of Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk Assessment and Planning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/insects14020196
insects-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
Correction published on 31 January 2024, see Insects 2024, 15(2), 93.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Biology, Ecology and Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies in China: A Review

by
Yuxin He
1,
Yijuan Xu
1,* and
Xiao Chen
1,2,*
1
Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, Department of Entomology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
2
Henry Fok School of Biology and Agriculture, Shaoguan University, Shaoguan 512005, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2023, 14(2), 196; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020196
Submission received: 5 January 2023 / Revised: 5 February 2023 / Accepted: 8 February 2023 / Published: 16 February 2023 / Corrected: 31 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tephritid Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Biology, Ecology, and Integrated Management)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Tephritid fruit flies are widely distributed around the world and lay eggs in fruits and vegetables, resulting in rotting and economic losses. To limit economic loss caused by these flies, we reviewed and summarized three decades of literature on 10 important fly species occurring in China. We summarized the biology, ecology and integrated control methods to help researchers, quarantine officials and even hobbyists obtain more basic knowledge and a more innovative outlook.

Abstract

Tephritid fruit flies are notoriously known for causing immense economic losses due to their infestation of many types of commercial fruits and vegetables in China. These flies are expanding, causing serious damage, and we summarized references from the last three decades regarding biological parameters, ecological performance and integrated pest management. There are 10 species of tephritid fruit flies mentioned at a relatively high frequency in China, and a detailed description and discussion in this comprehensive review were provided through contrast and condensation, including economics, distribution, identification, hosts, damage, life history, oviposition preference, interspecific competition and integrated management, in anticipation of providing effective strategies or bases for the subsequent development of new research areas and improvement of integrated management systems.

1. Introduction

Tephritid fruit flies belong to a large group of insects in Diptera: Tephritidae and are widely distributed around the world, with more than 500 genera and 5000 species [1]. Among them, harmful species are mainly distributed in six genera, Anastrepha, Bactrocera, Ceratitis, Zeugodacus and Rhagoletis [2,3]. These flies are notorious for causing immense economic losses due to their infestation of many types of commercial fruits and vegetables; therefore, significant effort is carried out in the risk analysis progress, and takes substantial investments for control [4]. Moreover, these flies are highly valued quarantine or invasive agricultural pests internationally that have the characteristics of rapid spread, invasiveness and destructiveness [5,6].
This paper presents an extensive collection of literature based on the Chinese context to provide useful local knowledge for researchers, quarantine officials, and industry biosecurity experts on tephritid fruit flies. In addition to being searchable in PubMed and Web of Science (WOS), the majority of Chinese studies on these flies are included in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science and Technology Journal Database, for which we have compiled and summarized nearly three decades of information that targeted the large and dangerous pest group, such as the genera Bactorcera, Carpomya, Rhagoletis and Zeugodacus, which are the most studied in China, especially Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel), Bactrocera minax (Enderlein), Bactrocera tsuneonis (Miyake), Carpomya vesuviana (Costa), Rhagoletis batava obseuriosa (Kolomiets), Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett), Zeugodacus scutellatus (Hendel) and Zeugodacus tau (Walker). Focusing on the perspective of biosafety risk analysis and assessment, we summarize and provide an outlook on the characteristics of the biology, ecology and integrated management of these flies in China, including economic importance, distribution, species identification, host range and damage characteristics, life history, oviposition and host preference, and interspecific competition and details and examples of control methods, which provide effective strategies or bases for the subsequent development of new research areas and the improvement of integrated management systems.

2. Economic Importance and Distribution

2.1. Economic Importance

Tephritid fruit flies cause damage not only to hosts but also to the development of related industries and economic income. Because of the most serious damage and the greatest number of host species, B. dorsalis and Z. cucurbitae have always been used as examples. By constructing an index system for assessing the economic loss caused by B. dorsalis, the total economic loss to Fujian Province in 2005 was calculated as 14.9 million dollars, of which the direct economic loss was 13.4 million dollars and the indirect economic loss was 1.5 million dollars [7]. Using the @RISK model to predict the direct economic loss caused by Z. cucurbitae in China, under the scenarios of no control and control, the annual direct economic losses were 666.6–3551.5 million dollars and 202.3–2141.8 million dollars, respectively, and the annual direct economic loss that could be recovered under control was 337.7–1613.9 million dollars [8]. In addition to the economic loss, in agricultural areas, the cost of prevention and management is also part of the economic expenditure. For Hainan melon households, the yield of bitter melon is 1500 kg/667 m2 in winter, and the selling price is 0.98 dollar/kg, so households could receive 1465.2 dollar/667 m2 in gross profit; based on an investigation of the same area, Hainan melon households need to spend 81.4 dollars on management costs (only 5.5% of gross profit, but including pesticides, labor and machinery depreciation), with a prevention and control effect of 85% [9].

2.2. Distribution

The data presented in Figure 1 and Table 1 were obtained from literature reports with the field evidence. Fujian and Taiwan Provinces in East China, Guangdong Province and the Guangxi Zhuang Zizhiqu in South China, and Guizhou, Sichuan and Yunnan Provinces in Southwest China are the areas where the tephritid fruit flies overlap many times. In subsequent studies, we observed the phenological changes in these overlapping areas and explain the mechanisms related to the introduction, occurrence and invasion of fruit flies in depth at the ecological level.

3. Morphological Characteristics

3.1. Basic Taxonomy

Tephritid flies not only cause direct economic damage to fruits and vegetables, but also increase huge costs for relevant quarantine or control programs because of the uncorrected morphology and identification [3]. In the process of literature review, we could also find that the taxonomy of Tephritidae has been constantly revised; especially in the adult stage, their markings and colors are very similar, which may be considered as under selective pressure or resulting from wasp mimicry [90], but they also have typical characteristics, such as B. dorsalis has a dark black and yellow coloration on the whole body, and most of the thorax back is black with obvious yellow “U”-shaped markings, while Z. cucurbitae has an obvious “T” shape [76,91].
But for the immature stage, the morphological differences are very subtle, so in the guidance of daily agricultural activities, that is, the popular science of farmers or primary-level agricultural departments, we generally only give a general description. The eggs are slightly curved and shuttle-shaped, one side is tapered, and the other side is oval, with a milky color in the newly hatched period that slowly transforms into a light-yellow color. The larvae are creamy white, with a pointed head, black mouth hook and thick tail, and go through three developmental stages, gradually increasing in length as the age increases. The pupae are oval-shaped, being light yellow initially and changing to reddish brown. There is a protrusion of valve remnants on the anterior end of the pupal body, with a slight constriction at the posterior end of the valve.

3.2. Molecular Identification

It is easy to confuse the morphological identification of tephritid flies, which produces erroneous results; in particular, the distinction between similar species of flies requires complete morphological structures and extensive practical experience and professional skills, while the immature stage is more difficult to identify because of extremely similar immature stages [92]. Molecular identification methods can greatly reduce the cost required for rearing to the adult state, and the application of molecular techniques can ensure the accuracy and objectivity of the identification results. These methods include isozymes, PCR, RAPD, RFLP, AFLP and SSR [92]. A technical system was established for the molecular identification of Chinese quarantine tephritids based on DNA barcoding technology, conventional PCR, quantitative real-time PCR and integrated flow path microarray technology [93]. Then, a DNA barcoding library of Chinese quarantine tephritids was constructed, mainly involving 27 species, and it was also possible to identify some species of tephritids in the nonadult state. Critically, DNA barcoding enables the accurate identification of target fly species other than the complex [93].

4. Host Range and Damage Characteristics

4.1. Host Range

Basically, the hosts listed in Table 2 were obtained from field surveys; the most serious damage was caused by the genus Bactrocera, especially B. correcta and B. dorsalis. The host range spanned a large area; among the hosts, the most infested fruits were concentrated in the Rutaceae and Rosaceae families, while vegetables were concentrated in the Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae families.

4.2. Damage Characteristics

Tephritid fruit flies oviposit in the host plants, the hatching larvae directly feeding, and cause rotting and premature yellowing and loss of products [107,108]. It has also been shown that episodic enteritis leading to abdominal pain and diarrhea occurred in humans after the consumption of pernicious guavas, and maggots were then detected in the patient’s feces and identified by rearing as B. dorsalis [109].

5. Life History

Tephritid fruit flies have one or more generations per year [59]. Most are phytophagous taxa [110], and eclosion adults develop to sexual maturity during 6–13 days [111,112,113]. After sexual maturity, the female lays eggs under the skin of fruits, and the larvae are mature enough to pupate in the soil of hosts, usually overwintering as pupae, and then enter the next generation after the new adult eclosion. The specific developmental stages are as follows:
Egg hatching in the field varies seasonally, from approximately 1 day in summer, 2–3 days in spring and autumn, to 7–20 days in winter [114]. The developmental period of larvae varies from 9 to 23 days; if the absence of food or deterioration of food occurs, the mortality of 1st and 2nd instar larvae increases, whereas 3rd instar larvae may pupate earlier, or the developmental stages become longer, or body size is smaller [115].
The developmental period of the pupa becomes shorter with increasing temperature. Within a certain temperature range, the period of pupa lasts from 5 to 33 days [116], the prepupae transfer to pupate from 1 to 2 days [117], and the moisture content of the sand or soil in which the mature larvae enter affects the depth of pupation and the survival rate of the pupae [114]. There are also cases of diapause, such as the “double-edged” effect of low temperatures, which can induce diapause in B. minax; however, natural low temperatures in the field can also promote pupation and eclosion, but the release of diapause is not affected by the photoperiod [118,119].
Adults can eclose throughout the whole day but are most vigorous at 6 to 10 a.m. Newly eclosed adults crawl to a shady place to rest for 2 to 3 h and gradually begin to feed after their wings unfold [111,114,115,120]. Sexual maturation of posteclosion adults occurs after supplementation [111,121], and this process is followed by mating for approximately 8 to 15 days in daylight, especially in the early morning [115,122,123].
The flight ability of tephritids, especially B. dorsalis, does not decrease with sexual organ maturity but is strongest during the peak of oviposition. The maximum flight age is different from that of typical migratory insects, indicating that the phenomenon of “oogenesis conjugated with flight”, which is characteristic of migratory insects, does not exist in B. dorsalis [124]. Therefore, under natural conditions in the wild, tephritid fruit flies are capable of long-distance dispersal under certain conditions [125], and their flight ability is an important reason for their expanding distribution and occurrence area, as well as their reoccurrence after eradication [126,127].

6. Oviposition and Host Preference

When tephritid fruit flies oviposit, mated females will select certain species and varieties of hosts, and there may be differences in selectivity for the same host variety [128]. For example, B. dorsalis preferred local mangoes over other introduced species [18]. In addition, the damage caused by B. minax adult oviposition in three orange varieties was significantly different, and the damage rates of “Luo Qi”, “Wenzhou Tangerine” and “Za Gan” were 20.7%, 26.3% and 40.7%, respectively [129]. The selectivity of Z. cucurbitae for different varieties of mangoes was ranked as “3-year-old mango” > “Tainung No. 1” > “Tiger Leopard Tooth” > “Carmine mango” > “Hawksbill mango” [45].
Host color, maturity and size attributes also influence oviposition selection, with most tephritid fruit flies showing a strong tendency toward yellow [128]. For example, B. dorsalis clearly prefers the color orange, which is similar to the color that is close to that at maturity, and is more sensitive to orange, green and yellow colors in the wavelength range of 500 to 640 nm [130]. However, there are also other examples: B. dorsalis prefers black to yellow [107], but red was more effective in attracting B. correcta than yellow [131], and Z. cucurbitae was most phototropic to purple and white, followed by yellow [116]. The extent of damage caused by tephritid fruit flies increases as the fruit matures [128]. For instance, B. dorsalis had a bias in the selection of host maturity, with the damage rate of late-ripening varieties being higher than that of early-ripening varieties [18]. The most obvious physical manifestation of the difference between ripe and immature varieties is “hardness”; hence, B. correcta showed oviposition selection on the same species of fruits with different hardness, i.e., low hardness (overripe) > medium hardness (just ripe) > high hardness (unripe) [13].
The different tissue sites of the hosts and whether they are injured also play a role in oviposition selection [128]; for example, B. dorsalis preferred to oviposit on banana flesh rather than the peel, but preferred mango peel to the flesh, and the number of eggs oviposited at different tissue sites reached a significant level of difference [132]. In addition, there was high selectivity for artificially damaged pomegranates on which the highest number of eggs was laid. In addition to the factors described above, the interactions between multiple factors need to be considered [133].

7. Interspecific Competition

Interspecific competition is a common phenomenon among insects, especially among closely related species, and is often accompanied by invasion phenomena. The invasion of tephritids is systematically accompanied by a large change in the number or extinction of local/foreign colonies, and this invasion-induced change in the interspecific population can be attributed to competitive interspecific substitution or exclusion [134,135]. An in-depth understanding of interspecific competition in tephritids can theoretically explain the intrinsic mechanisms and verify the hierarchical pattern, as well as provide biological evaluation indicators for predicting the potential and success of invasive tephritid fruit flies [136].
China is a country with a complex occurrence of tephritid fruit flies, but at present, most of the domestic research on interspecific competition is on biological behavior; for example, comparing the oviposition selectivity of B. correcta and B. dorsalis for different hosts. Hosts with high odor selectivity were found to be more suitable for the growth and development of offspring, but a single parameter (development period, survival rate or pupal weight) was not a suitable indicator for host adaptation of tephritids, and it was found that the two species have both overlapping and divergent host ecological niches [137]. After the larval stage, the higher the population density, the more competitive the two species become, although the larvae of B. correcta are more resistant to crowding than those of B. dorsalis, which showed greater competitive ability. After the pupal stage, the later pupation of mixed pupae may be inhibited by earlier pupation. The asymmetrical mating behavior of both species was reported to have negative effects on the reproduction of the other [137]. Interspecific competition among B. correcta, B. dorsalis and Ceratitis capitata was also explored and showed that there was no mating interference among these three species, but oviposition competition occurred at the appropriate temperature and on guava, and the two Bactrocera species had a significant suppressive effect on C. capitata [137]. The observation records of the above research can not only be associated with Christensen and Foote’s suggestion that the reason for the absence of C. capitata in Southeast Asia may be interspecific competition between C. capitata and indigenous flies such as B. dorsalis [138] but also serve as a preliminary exploration to answer the question raised by Ma et al., which is similar to the above situation in China. Since 1985, when C. capitata was first observed in imported fruits and vegetables in Guangdong Province, it has been identified many times per year in imported products, but there has never been an outbreak in China. It is not known whether this phenomenon is indeed related to the retention role of local tephritid fruit flies; the mechanisms involved are poorly understood, and the precise competitive mechanism is far from clear [139]. In addition to the above research, there are also comparative observations of competition between Z. cucurbitae and Z. tau regarding oviposit selection preference, the number of offspring in different hosts, etc. [140,141].

8. Integrated Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies

8.1. Monitoring Surveys

The “attractants + trap” strategy is one of the most effective methods for monitoring surveys and controlling tephritid fruit flies, and commonly used attractants are divided into two main categories: sexual pheromones and food baits, which are placed into efficient and convenient traps. Wu et al., based on the technical bill on tephritid fruit fly monitoring proposed by the International Plant Protection Organization (IPPC), took the opportunity to participate in the international expert group conference to organize the international content related to monitoring techniques and proposed a set of technical element guidelines that can be used by monitoring managers and operators for reference within the boundaries of China; the specific monitoring content was based on “monitoring purposes” (monitoring, detection or delimiting) and “timing and stage” (the period around control or eradication) [142].

8.2. Traps

A trap is used to house the attractant devices, and its structure should be suitable for the placement of different traits and to allow maximum effectiveness. At the same time, it should also be easy for the monitoring personnel to hang the traps, maintain them and collect data as well as perform other operations [143]. In ISPM No. 26 (International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures, ISPMs), most of the commonly used traps and the corresponding species of tephritid fruit flies were listed, which were divided into three types; dry types accounted for the majority [144]:
  • Dry type: Cook and Cunningham, ChamP (CH), Jackson, Delta, Lynfield, OBDT, Phase IV, RS, Steiner, ST, YP, Rebell (RB);
  • Wet type: McPhail, Harris;
  • Dry and wet type: Easy trap (ET), MLT, Tephri (TP).
Because of different host species planting or geographical sites, monitoring and control within traditional methods could cost large amounts of human and material resources. These assignments are difficult to carry out, with severe weather conditions or loss of traps, resulting in incorrect data obtained, so new and highly efficient methods are necessary. A monitoring system was designed based on the internet-of-things, which was composed of intelligent fruit fly traps, terminal types of monitoring and remote and mobile types, and the accuracy of the system reached 94.23% [145]. With the development of technology, such as the addition of networks, artificial intelligence and other technologies, digital and intelligent-based fly management systems will become more advanced.

8.3. Sex Pheromones

Insect sex pheromones are produced and released by sexually mature individuals, which can induce or provoke the mating of individuals of the same species but the opposite sex [146]. In 2008, China first approved the application of three insect sex pheromones for agricultural pest control, i.e., B. dorsalis, C. capitata and Z. cucurbitae, which started the prelude to the use of insect sex pheromones for pest control [146]. At present, male sexual attractants mainly include volatile components released by flowers in nature, which are used for pollination purposes, such as methyl eugenol (4-allyl-1,2-dimethoxybenzene), raspberry ketone (4-(4-hydroxyphenyl)-2 butanone), cuelure, zingerone and zingerol [147,148,149,150,151,152,153]. However, there are also components of substances volatilized by the insects themselves, e.g., male C. vesuviana emit nonanal [154], and undecanol is emitted from the cystic glands of B. minax [155].

8.4. Food Baits

After eclosion, tephritid fruit flies need to feed on sugar and protein for normal growth and development of eggs and sex organs [111,121]; depending on this property, food source attractants have been developed, such as hydrolyzed protein baits, food source synthetic baits, as well as bacterial fermentation broth and its secondary metabolites.
A laboratory and field comparison between homemade hydrolysates I/II (Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University) and GF-120 (Dow AgroSciences) showed that the homemade hydrolysate I was more effective than GF-120 in attracting females [156]. Subsequently, field measurements in poplar peach and guava orchards revealed that as the concentration of waste brewer’s yeast enzymatic protein and borax increased, the size of the trap increased due to the combination of enzymatic protein and borax, whereas the best concentration for enzymatic protein was 20–25 g/L, and the amount of added borax was 0.06–0.12 mol/L [157].
For waste brewer’s yeast, digestion of B. dorsalis was mainly based on its volatiles, so seven main volatiles (3-methyl-1-butanol, benzaldehyde, octyl acetate, phenethyl acetate, ethyl caprylate, benzene acetonitrile and phenethyl alcohol) and their mixtures were screened for their attraction effect. A mixture (200 μL/mL octyl acetate and phenethyl acetate and 100 μL/mL ethyl caprylate) was found to be the most effective, reaching 88.6% [158,159]. In addition, the attraction effect of modified hydrolyzed protein baits in the field showed that the addition of 0.18 g brown sugar to the hydrolyzed protein solution (4.85 g/30 mL) significantly enhanced the attraction effect on B. dorsalis, B. latifrons, B. scutellata, Z. cucurbitae and Z. tau [160]. On the other hand, aqueous solutions of H-protein bait, GF-120 bait, sugar-vinegar-wine mixture, torula yeast and Jufeng attractant were used in a citrus orchard, and it was found that the H-protein bait was the best, attracting significantly more B. minax adults than the sugar–vinegar–wine mixture, torula yeast and Jufeng attractant [161].

8.5. Natural Enemy Utilization

Biological control of tephritids is mainly carried out by using natural enemy insects, including predatory and parasitic insects, of which parasitic natural enemies are divided into two categories: parasitic microorganisms and parasitic wasps [162]. Parasitic wasps are the most common method.
Currently, China has introduced stable, large-scale rearing and better natural control of the parasitic wasps Diachasmimorpha longicaudata [163] and Fopius arisanus [164]. In 2020, D. longicaudata was released in guava and poppy orchards in Chongzuo (Guangxi) at a ratio of 1:10 between female wasps and second to third instar larvae of B. dorsalis, and its parasitism rate increased rapidly with increasing release amount, indicating that the wasp has a cumulative effect in the field, and its parasitism rate could be as high as 5.97% after three consecutive releases [165]. Fopius arisanus was introduced from the United States by Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University in 2005, and a stable experimental population was established [166]. Subsequently, in 2015, a release trial was conducted in the field, and the parasitism rate reached approximately 57% with an effective control time (approximately 15 days); the ratio of F. arisanus to B. dorsalis was 3:1 [167].

8.6. Key Points of the Integrated Management System

It is impractical to rely on one method alone to manage and control tephritid fruit flies, and the control of these flies is a complex system project. Taking B. dorsalis as an example, through several years of study, the research team of Professor Zeng Ling from South China Agricultural University proposed the control strategy “agricultural measures as the basis, trapping and control as the main means, and chemical control as the emergency”, and the integrated management project includes the following:
  • “Agricultural measures as the basis”
Monitoring is always an information source as a basis for the work to be carried out. Focus on field sanitation, with the use of physical control methods, because dropped fruit cleaning, bagging efforts, irrigation dips and cutting off the host chain are all fundamental to suppressing the insect population base [168].
2.
“Trapping and control as the main means”
Using sexual pheromones in the progress of control as early as possible, such as the unripe fruit stage, could help to reduce subsequent control costs. Long-term and continuous trapping with food and low-toxicity baits, because tephritid flies are mainly infested with larvae in the host and are difficult to kill directly with pharmaceuticals.
3.
“Chemical control as the emergency”
In case of emergency or major outbreaks, using 80% Trichlorfon (1000 times) with 150 g brown sugar per week, and a total of three times, the control effect could reach 89.3% [169]. Using 20% Triazophos (500 times) or 1.8% Aifudin (3000–4000 times) per week, and a total of five times, the control effect could be up to 88.9% [168].
Special attention should also be paid to the fact that some flies mentioned in this paper have a wide variety of hosts, and the harvest periods of various hosts may be different or overlap, which is highly conducive for pests to cause damage, so management and control should focus on the harvest period and reduce the damage to below the level of economic damage.

8.7. Sterile Insect Technique (SIT)

Sterile insect technology (SIT) is an important component of an integrated pest management system (IPM). SIT in its broadest sense includes irradiation, chemistry, Wolbachia symbiosis induction, genetic modification, and combinations of these strategies [170,171,172,173,174]. The most popular and established practice in China is the application of irradiation technology for control, mostly in the case of the tephritid Bactrocera species.
In a large-scale experiment, the Institute of Atomic Energy Utilization, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, in Huishui County, Guizhou Province, released 56,272 and 95,320 radiation-sterile B. minax flies in the Zhonglian Orange orchard (500 mu) in 1987 and 1989, respectively, with release ratios of 12.5:1 and 45:1, which reduced the infestation rate from 5 to 8% in normal years to 0.005%, with a significant effect [175]. Later, in 1993 and 1994, researchers expanded the release area to approximately 118 hm2 in seven orange orchards containing approximately 100,000 Wenzhou honey tangerine trees, releasing approximately 0.6 million and 1 million sterile flies, which reduced the infestation rate from 5.194% in the three years before to 0.134% in 1993 and 0.098% in 1994 [176]. In 2008, irradiated males of B. dorsalis were released in fields three times in Fujian, and the longest dispersal distance of sterile B. dorsalis was 207.89 m on the sixth day, and the longest survival period was 15 days. The egg sterility rate of the test group was 91.15% after mating with wild females, but that of the control group was only 21.02%, which indicated a better release effect [177].

9. Conclusions

According to the review, the wide range of distribution, broad host range and long adult reproductive life are the main reasons why most tephritid fruit flies cause serious damage, and there have been many attempts in integrated pest management according to the damage characteristics. These attempts have laid a good foundation for improving or discovering new means of control and management. However, we need to be clear at all times in the process. Effective means of control need not simply stack different types of methods but need to be adapted to local conditions, and then, according to the regularity of pest occurrence, not just use chemical agents, especially broad-spectrum insecticides, to avoid the “3R” problem, that is, the resistance, resurgence and residue of pesticides [178], which even affects the safety of humans and livestock.
Subsequent studies can be applied based on the biological properties and environmental regularity in the review; for example, studying the mechanism of phytophagous insects’ olfactory perception of host plant volatiles can help reveal the synergistic evolutionary relationship between phytophagous insects and host plants, screen resistant plant species and develop green pest control technologies [179]. In addition, among the parasitic natural enemies of tephritids, microbial natural enemies include symbiotic bacteria, microsporidian pathogens, fungi, parasitic nematodes and bacteria [162], which are also worth exploring in depth.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.X.; literature collection and analysis, Y.H. and X.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.H. and X.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.H., Y.X. and X.C. All authors took part in discussing, reading and approving the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFC2600404) and the Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture Project (NZ2021022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Scolari, F.; Valerio, F.; Benelli, G.; Papadopoulos, N.T.; Vaníčková, L. Tephritid Fruit Fly Semiochemicals: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives. Insects 2021, 12, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Doorenweerd, C.; Leblanc, L.; Norrbom, A.L.; San Jose, M.; Rubinoff, D. A Global Checklist of the 932 Fruit Fly Species in the Tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae). ZooKeys 2018, 730, 19–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ismay, J. Fruit flies of economic significance: Their identification and bionomics. By Ian M. White and Marlene M. Elson-Harris. (Wallingford: CAB International, 1991). xii + 601 pp. Soft cover £30. ISBN-0-85198-790. Bull. Entomol. Res. 1992, 82, 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Clarke, A.R.; Measham, P.F. Competition: A Missing Component of Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk Assessment and Planning. Insects 2022, 13, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Liu, H.; Zhang, D.; Xu, Y.; Wang, L.; Cheng, D.; Qi, Y.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y. Invasion, Expansion, and Control of Bactrocera Dorsalis (Hendel) in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2019, 18, 771–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Allwood, A.J.; Leblanc, L. Losses Caused by Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Seven Pacific Island Countries. In Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific: A Regional Symposium, Nadi, Fiji, 28–31 October 1996; Allwood, A.J., Drew, R.A.I., Eds.; Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Canberra, Australia, 1997; pp. 208–211. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ning, Z.Y. Economic Loss Evaluation and Risk Assessment of Damage by Oriental Fruit Fly in Fujian. Master’s Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sun, H.Y.; Qin, Y.J.; Fang, Y.; Zhao, Z.H.; Pan, X.B.; Zhao, S.Q.; Liu, H.; Lang, S.; Lu, G.C.; Li, Z.H. The potential economic loss of bitter gourd industry in China caused by Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) based on @RISK. Plant Quar. 2018, 32, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pan, F.; Xiao, T.B.; Qin, S.; Chen, H.Y.; Lin, Z.F.; Xie, S.H. Study on yield of bitter gourd damaged by Bactrocera cucurbitae and its economic thresholds. China Plant Prot. 2014, 34, 12–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, X.; Zhang, L.; Haack, R.A.; Liu, J.; Ye, H. A noteworthy step on a vast continent: New expansion records of the guava fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi, 1916) (Diptera: Tephritidae), in mainland China. BioInvasions Rec. 2019, 8, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, X.; Jin, Y.; Ye, H. Recent spread and climatic ecological niche of the invasive guava fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta, in mainland China. J. Pest Sci. 2013, 86, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yu, J.Y.; Ren, K.L.; Xue, W.P.; Li, T.Q.; Wang, X.J.; Geng, K. The species and population dynamics of Tephritid fruit flies in the macaque peach orchard of Xiuwen County. South China Fruits 2022, 51, 117–121. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wei, C.H.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y. Study on ovipostion tendency and selectivity of Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) (Diptera: Tephritidae) towards different hosts. South China Fruits 2011, 40, 67–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, Z.S.; Ding, Y.M.; Zhou, J.; Deng, Y.L.; Bai, Y.H.; Lei, Q.W. Development and survival rate of Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi) (Diptera:Tephritidae) on mango at different temperatures. Plant Prot. 2015, 41, 113–116+156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wei, B.; Wei, C.M.; Li, Y.G.; Tang, J.C.; Hu, X.S.; Liu, H.; Dong, W.X. The effect of egg extracts on the behavior of gravid female Bactrocera dorsalis and Bactrocera correcta and analysis of chemicals on the egg surfaces of these species. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol. 2021, 58, 885–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liang, G.Q.; Zhang, S.M.; Xu, W. Descriptions of tephritids flies in parts of southern China and two new records of China. Acta Agric. Univ. Jiangxiensis 1989, 11, 14–20. [Google Scholar]
  17. Qin, Y.-J.; Buahom, N.; Krosch, M.N.; Du, Y.; Wu, Y.; Malacrida, A.R.; Deng, Y.-L.; Liu, J.-Q.; Jiang, X.-L.; Li, Z.-H. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure in Bactrocera correcta (Diptera: Tephritidae) Inferred from MtDNA Cox1 and Microsatellite Markers. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, H.X.; Ye, H.; Lv, J. On damages and Distributions of fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel) in Yunnan Province, Southern China. J. Yunnan Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2000, 22, 473–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lei, Y.M.; Liao, D.Q.; Huang, S.C.; Xie, L.Y. Study on integrated control against Bactrocera dorsalis in guava orchard. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2011, 39, 6438–6440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Xia, Z.M. Kinds of plants quarantine object and their damage in Guizhou. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 1998, 26, 22–24. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lin, M.G.; Zhang, Y.; Zeng, L.; Wang, X.J.; Li, F.; Shi, J. Study on population dynamics and comprehensive control of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in Guava orchard, Hainan Province. South China Fruits 2014, 43, 60–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. He, Y.B.; Zhan, R.L.; Zhao, Y.L.; Lu, Y.Y. Occurrence and control of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) on several tropical fruits. Chin. J. Trop. Crop. 2006, 27, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Liu, N. The Biological Characteristics and the Interspecific Competition of Oriental Fruit Fly and Guava Fruit Fly. Master’s Thesis, Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  24. Zhou, G.L.; Chen, C.; Ye, J.; Hu, B.S.; Liu, F.Q. Predicting potential ecological distribution of Bactrocera dorsalis in China using GARP ecological niche modeling. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2007, 27, 3362–3369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lin, Z.J.; Sun, G.K.; Gao, Q.Z.; Liu, J.Y.; Zhang, Q.Y.; Chen, H.Z.; Chen, J.F.; Xu, Y.Q.; Sun, D.H.; Hong, Z.Q. Epidemic monitoring of the oriental fruit fly in Xiamen City. Entomol. J. East China 1998, 7, 72–75. [Google Scholar]
  26. Zhang, Y.A.; Zhao, X.Q. Study on oriental fruit fly in Sichuan Province. Southwest China J. Agric. Sci. 1994, 7, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhai, Q.H.; Ni, M.; Xu, L.J. Study on the occurrence pattern and influencing factors of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in Wuxi area. Xiandai Hortic. 2018, 150–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, Y.C.; He, Y.B.; Lei, X.T.; Zhao, Y.L. The occurrence pattern and control technology of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in Yangtze orchard. China Trop. Agric. 2005, 35–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, Y.M.; Tan, Y.Q.; Zhang, G.A. Analysis of the suitability of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in Hubei Province. Hubei Plant Prot. 2011, 23–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, J.H.; Xiong, X.Z.; Yang, L.Y.; Xiong, Z.P.; Pan, Y.Z. Analysis on suitable distribution area of oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis) based on GARP ecological niche model. Plant Dis. Pests 2010, 1, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aketarawong, N.; BONIZZONI, M.; Thanaphum, S.; Gomulski, L.; GASPERI, G.; MALACRIDA, A.R.; Gugliemino, C. Inferences on the population structure and colonization process of the invasive oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Mol. Ecol. 2007, 16, 3522–3532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wan, X.; Nardi, F.; Zhang, B.; Liu, Y. The oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, in China: Origin and gradual inland range expansion associated with population growth. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e25238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gong, X.Z.; Zhong, Y.; Huang, J.Q.; Qiu, S.; Du, Z.X.; Pan, R.W. Research Progress of Bactrocera latifons in China. North Hortic. 2016, 195–198. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=bfyy201611050&dbname=CJFDLAST2016 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  34. Liang, R.C. Survey on species and distribution of tephritids flies in Guangxi. Guangxi Plant Prot. 1988, 25–30. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=gxzb198803007&dbname=CJFD8589 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  35. Fan, Q.S. Dacus (Bactrocera) latifrons (Hendel) was collected in Wanding, Yunnan Province. Plant Quar. 1989, 3, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Chen, M.Z.; Zhou, L.X. Two species of genera Dacus were trapped in Sha Tau Kok. Plant Quar. 1991, 5, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Xie, Z.F.; Chen, X.F.; Chen, Z.L.; Zhou, L.X.; Wu, J.Y.; Zhu, D.W. Monitoring survey of quarantine tephritids flies in Shenzhen. Plant Quar. 1995, 9, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Deng, Y.P.; Qiu, Q. Occurrence and monitoring surveys of tephritids flies in Guangxi. Guangxi Hortic. 2008, 19, 22–24. [Google Scholar]
  39. Li, W.F.; Gong, X.Z.; Huang, Y.C.; Chen, Y.L.; Huang, J.Y.; Huang, S.G.; Chen, K.S. Tephritids species and occurrence dynamics in Guangxi. J. Southwest Univ. Nat. Sci. 2008, 30, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, X.; Liu, X.F.; Ye, H. The major fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) pest species and their geographic distribution in Yunnan Province. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2010, 30, 717–725. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lin, M.G.; Cai, B.; Zhou, H.; Wang, X.J.; Li, F.; Shi, J. Study on population dynamics and integrated control of fruit fly pests in anti-season greenhouses hami melon (Cucumis melo L.) in Hainan Province. North Hortic. 2014, 115–118. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=bfyy201424032&dbname=CJFDLAST2015 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  42. Huang, Z.; Chen, S.P.; Xie, J.; Guo, Q.X. Rapid identification of Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) by using species-specific PCR technique. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2015, 58, 460–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. CABI. Bactrocera latifrons (Solanum Fruit Fly); CABI Compendium: Wallingford, UK, 2022; p. 8719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cui, Z.; Zhou, Q.; Liu, Y.; Si, P.; Wang, Y. Molecular identification of citrus fruit flies and genetic diversity analysis of Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations in China based on mtDNA COI gene sequences. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2020, 63, 85–96. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, C.J.; Zhang, H.Y. Plant Pests Quarantine, 2nd ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2009; ISBN 978-7-03-023570-1. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zhang, G.F.; Wang, F.L.; Lv, Z.C.; Huang, C.; Li, Y.J.; Guo, J.Y.; Li, C.R.; Wan, F.H. Research progress on the biology, ecology and the application of sterile insect technique on Bactrocera minax (Enderlein). J. Biosaf. 2015, 24, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xia, Y.; Ma, X.; Hou, B.; Ouyang, G. A Review of Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China for the Purpose of Safeguarding. Adv. Entomol. 2018, 6, 35–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gao, L.Z. Population Genetic Structure Analysis of Bactrocera minax (Diptera:Tephritidae) in China Inferred from ND4 and Microsatellite Markers. Master’s Thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  49. Li, Z.L. Studies on Spatiotemporal Distribution and Control of Bactrocera minax. Master’s Thesis, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yang, W.Z.; Qin, Y.J.; Wang, X.L.; Feng, X.D.; Li, Y.; Li, Z.H. Research progress on Bactrocera tsuneonis. China Plant Prot. 2022, 42, 21–28. [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, M.J.; Cheng, L.L.; Zhang, X.J.; Tang, M.F.; Huang, F.; Xiao, C.; Dong, W.X. Daily activity and spatial distribution pattern of Bactrocera (Tetradacus) tsuneonis in orange orchard of Yongshan, Yunnan. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2013, 25, 87–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Xia, S.W.; Song, X.P. Tetradacus tsuneonis were founded in Luodian and Bijie, Guizhou Province. Plant Quar. 1985, 47. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD8589&filename=ZWJY198501019&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=7O7qwyMKVVcROlr_scxh7otrNZYSOauhzu6neyntrw_ZIrAmw1XwOQ7a_8HK3spd (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  53. Zhang, Y.A. Tetradacus tsuneonis (Miyake) were founded in Pingshan, Sichuan. China Citrus 1984, 31–32. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD7984&filename=FRUI198402017&uniplatform=OVERSEA&v=VqGT4wVTJTXeijknwOjlhMpWzr1bR47P0Ul7z9Rmxc2gFpA2_tqPHQGHjzn0cZGQ (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  54. Wan, F.H.; Zheng, X.B.; Guo, J.Y. Biology and Management of Invasive Alien Species in Agriculture and Forestry; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2005; ISBN 7-03-014409-0. [Google Scholar]
  55. Yue, Z.X. Monitoring results of quarantine tephritids flies in Henan Province. Plant Quar. 2002, 16, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fan, J.A. The survey of vegetable tephritids flies in Sichuan. J. Chang. Veg. 1993, 15–17+23. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=cjsc199306011&dbname=CJFD9093 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  57. Shang, M.Q.; Liu, C.H.; Zhang, D.M.; Jin, Y.X.; Xie, C.F.; Li, M.M.; Zhou, H.X. The quarantine pest, Zeugodacus scutellata (Hendel) was first time founded in Shandong. Plant Quar. 2021, 35, 38. [Google Scholar]
  58. Li, Y.J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, D.M. Preliminary report on occurrence and integrated control technology of Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) scutellata (Hendel) and Dacus (Callantra) trimacula (Wang) in Zhengzhou. In Proceedings of the Symposium Proceedings; Henan Provincial Plant Protection Society, Henan Provincial Entomological Society, Henan Provincial Plant Pathology Society, Zhengzhou, China, 11 March 2022; pp. 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  59. Zhou, B. Bionomics of Bactrocera tau (Walker) (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the Effect of Foods on Population Dynamics. Master’s Thesis, Southwest Agricultural University, Chongqing, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  60. Lin, M.G.; Yang, Z.J.; Wang, X.J.; Li, J.Y.; Li, W.D. A taxonomic study of the subfamily Dacinae (Diptera:Tephritidae) from Hainan, China. Acta Entomol. Sin. 2006, 49, 310–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Li, H.P.; Lian, G.Y.; Dang, H.Y.; Ding, S.Y. Population dynamics of Dacus (Callantra) trimacula (Wang) and Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) scutellatus (Hendel) in Shanxi Province. J. Shanxi Agric. Sci. 2008, 36, 64–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wu, S.Y.; Xie, G.Y.; Han, S.P.; Mao, H.Y.; Zhao, Z.H.; Yuan, G.H. Population dynamics monitoring of Bactrocera scutellata (Hendel) in Henan Province. J. Henan Agric. Univ. 2009, 43, 642–646+651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Duan, Y.P. Dacus (Zeugodacus) scutellatus detected in Shaanxi. Plant Prot. 1989, 38–43. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=zwbh198906020&dbname=CJFD8589 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  64. Lin, H.F.; Gao, Y.B.; Yang, X.J.; Tao, W.P.; Yu, L.F. The monitoring survey of quarantine tephritids flies in Hefei. Plant Quar. 2007, 21, 111–112. [Google Scholar]
  65. Satar, A.; He, S.Y.; Tian, C.M.; Luo, Y.Q.; Yu, F.; Feng, X.F. Occurrence and distribution pattern of Carpomya vesuviana (Costa) pupae in the Turpan region. Plant Quar. 2008, 22, 295–297. [Google Scholar]
  66. He, S.Y.; Zhu, Y.F.; Satar, A.; Weng, J.B.; Chen, M.; Tian, C.M. Pest risk assessment of Carpomya vesuviana in China. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2011, 47, 107–116+197. [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhao, B. Primary Research of Biological Characteristics and Attractants of Rhagoletis batava obseuriosa (Diptera:Tephritidae) in the West of Inner Mongolia. Master’s Thesis, Hebei University, Baoding, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhang, N. Research on Biology and Ecology of Rhagoletis batava (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Altay. Master’s Thesis, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Ürümqi, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhu, J.M. Research on Genetic Diversity and Monitoring of Technology Different Geographical Populations of Rhagoletis batava Hering. Master’s Thesis, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Ürümqi, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  70. Han, B.B. Statistical analysis of Chinese literature about Bactrocera cucurbitae. J. Zhejiang Agric. Sci. 2021, 62, 983–986+991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. McQuate, G.T.; Liquido, N.J.; Nakamichi, K.A.A. Annotated World Bibliography of Host Plants of the Melon Fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae). In Insecta Mundi; Center for Systematic Entomology: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  72. Chen, Q.H.; Chen, R.; Chen, S.G. Investigation of the spatial distribution of Zeugodacus cucurbitae on bitter melons. Mod. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2011, 143–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jiang, X.L.; Ren, L.Q.; Xiao, S.; He, W.Z.; Sun, B.Z. Study on the biology of Bactrocera cucurbitae. Plant Quar. 2003, 17, 74–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Zhang, Q.S. Biological characteristics and control of Zeugodacus cucurbitae. China Veg. 2002, 37–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chen, H.D.; Zhou, C.Q.; Yang, P.J.; Liang, G.Q. On the seasonal population dynamics of Bactrocera cucurbitae, Bactrocera dorsalis and Bactrocera tau in Guangzhou. Acta Phytophylacica Sin. 1995, 22, 348–354. [Google Scholar]
  76. Deng, J.Q.; Zhu, X.M.; Han, P.; Yang, G.P.; Li, Z.C. Research progress of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China. Plant Quar. 2021, 35, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Chen, J.H.; Xu, Z.H.; Chen, W.M.; Jin, G.L.; Wang, Z.L. Notes on five species of tephritid fruit flies in Zhejiang Province. Acta Agric. Zhejiangensis 2006, 18, 28–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kong, L.B.; Lin, W.; Li, Z.H.; Wan, F.H.; Wang, Z.L.; Huang, G.S. A predication of potential georaphic distribution of melon fruit fly based on CLIMEX and DIVA-GIS. Acta Phytophylacica Sin. 2008, 35, 148–154. [Google Scholar]
  79. Xu, H.G.; Qiang, S. China’s Invasive Alien Species; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2011; ISBN 978-7-03-030388-2. [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhang, Y.N. Genetic Diversity Analysis of the Melon Fly, Bactrocera cucuribitae (Diptera:Tephritidae) and Screening Olfactory Receptor Genes. Master’s Thesis, Hainan University, Haikou, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang, Y.T.; Bai, Q.; Chen, H.S.; Tian, Z.Y.; Gao, X.Y.; Zhou, Z.S. Distribution differences between Zeugodacus cucurbitae and Zeugodacus tau in China. J. Environ. 2022, 44, 1170–1175. [Google Scholar]
  82. Zhao, X.Q.; Fan, J.A. A Study on the ecogeographical distribution of fruit flies infecting fruits and vegetables in Sichuan. J. Southwest Agric. Univ. 1996, 18, 515–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Jiang, S.F.; Zhang, Y.A.; Zhao, Y.X.; Ming, Y. Investigation of fruit and vegetable tephritid flies in Jinsha River Valley. Sichuan J. Agric. Sci. 1987, 2, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, J.C.; Yuan, Z.L.; Yang, J.Y. A dangerous pest was found in Gansu, Zeugodacus tau. Gansu Agric. Sci. Technol. 1994, 42. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=gsnk408.024&dbname=CJFD9495 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  85. Li, X.Z. The Population Character of Bactrocera tau and Its Physiological Modulation Mechanism to Diets and Heat Shocks. Ph.D. Thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  86. Liang, R.C.; Huang, S.G.; Huang, J.Y.; Zhao, Y.X.; Ming, Y. The investigation of fruit and vegetable tephritid flies in Guangxi. Guangxi Agric. Sci. 1985, 36–40+55. [Google Scholar]
  87. Zhang, Z.M.; Fang, B.Q. Preliminary investigation report on fruit and vegetable tephritid in Guiyang. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 1988, 14. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=gate198804002&dbname=CJFD8589 (accessed on 2 January 2023).Li, X.Z. The Population Character of Bactrocera tau and Its Physiological Modulation Mechanism to Diets and Heat Shocks. Ph.D. Thesis, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  88. Zhang, Y.; Chen, J.Y. Recent advances in research of Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau (Walker) in China. Chin. J. Trop. Agric. 2018, 38, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zhou, S.K.; Li, G.X.; Qiu, Z.H.; Li, Z.; Li, X.R. Observation of biological characteristics and control of Zeugodacus tau (Walker). Acta Phytophylacica Sin. 1993, 11–12. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=zwbh199305004&dbname=CJFD9093 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  90. White, I.M. Taxonomy of the Dacina (Diptera: Tephritidae) of Africa and the Middle East. Afr. Entomol. 2006, 1–156. [Google Scholar]
  91. Guo, T.D.; Gong, Q.T.; Ye, B.H.; Wu, H.B.; Sun, R.H. Progress in domestic research on Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Deciduous Fruits 2019, 51, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, Z.H.; Feng, H.L.; Lv, Z.Z.; Zhao, H.; Guo, M.X.; Zhu, T.M.; Zeng, X.D.; Chen, J.J. Research progress in detection technology of tephritids insects. Hubei Plant Prot. 2009, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jiang, F. Technique System for Molecular Identification of Quarantine Fruit Flies in China. Ph.D. Thesis, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  94. Liu, X.F.; Wang, D.M.; Ye, H. Overview on Research of Bactrocera correcta (Bezzi). Trop. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2005, 28, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
  95. Yan, Z.H.; Liu, N.; Tang, G.W.; Wang, W.X.; Li, L.L.; Xiao, M.; Tao, M.; Chen, G.H. Daily activity and their host species survey of guava fruit fly. Southwest J. Agric. Sci. 2016, 29, 1864–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Zhang, B.; Liu, Y.H.; Zhao, L.L.; Zhou, X. Research progress of oriental fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tetriphitidae). Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2008, 24, 391–397. [Google Scholar]
  97. Yan, Z.H.; Zhang, J.L.; Fang, X.J.; Zhu, W.L.; Zhang, W.H.; Wu, G.Y.; Zhang, L.; Tao, M.; Chen, G.H. Host species of the insect pest Bactrocera dorsalis in Mengzi, Yunnan, and population dynamics of Bactrocera dorsalis and its related environmental factors in loquat garden. Chin. J. Ecol. 2016, 35, 3037–3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Fang, S.M.; Luo, X.F.; Gao, H.L.; Zhu, L.L.; Li, J.B. Investigation on wild host plants of Bactrocera dorsalis in Huizhou Area. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2019, 47, 146–147+163. [Google Scholar]
  99. Ma, X.L.; Li, Z.H.; Ni, W.L.; Qu, W.W.; Wu, J.J.; Wan, F.H.; Hu, X.N. The Current and Future Potential Geographical Distribution of the Solanum Fruit Fly, Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer and Computing Technologies in Agriculture, Beijing, China, 29–31 October 2011; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 236–246. [Google Scholar]
  100. Liquido, N.J.; Harris, E.J.; Dekker, L.A. Ecology of Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) Populations: Host Plants, Natural Enemies, Distribution, and Abundance. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1994, 87, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Xiong, H.L.; Xiang, Z.J.; Liu, H.; Zhou, H.Z.; Feng, X.D.; Wang, Y.M.; Sun, J.S.; Qin, X.J.; Wang, F.X. Detection and Identification Method for Bactrocera tsuneonis (Miyake); Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (Former: Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China): Beijing, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  102. Wang, J.W.; Li, Z.H.; Chen, H.J.; Geng, J.; Wang, Z.L.; Wan, F.H. The potential geographic distribution of Bactrocera (Tetradacus) tsuneonis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Plant Quar. 2009, 23, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Xu, Z. Studies about the Selective Preference of Bactrocera cucuribitae (Coquillett) to Cucurbitaceae Plants. Master’s Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  104. Al Baki, M.A.; Keum, E.; Kim, H.; Song, Y.; Kim, Y.; Kwon, G.; Park, Y. Age grading and gene flow of overwintered Bactrocera scutellata populations. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2017, 20, 1402–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Li, X.Z.; Yang, H.Y.; Hu, K.; Wang, J.G. Temporal Dynamics of Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau (Diptera: Tephritidae) Adults in North Jiangxi, a Subtropical Area of China Revealed by Eight Years of Trapping with Cuelure. J. Asia-Pac. Entomol. 2020, 23, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Liu, L.H.; Liu, Y.H.; Zhou, B.; Zhang, Y.Q. Studies on damage and quantity dynamics of Bactrocera tau Walker (Trypetidae: Bactrocera) in different host fields. J. Southwest Univ. Nat. Sci. 2005, 27, 176–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Xu, Y.J.; Zeng, L.; Lu, Y.Y.; Lin, J.T. Ovipositional selection of the Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) to the different fruit. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 2005, 24, 25–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Huang, Z.; Guo, Q.X.; Wu, Q.M.; Huang, K.H. Morphology, hazards and China-invading risk of Bactrocera correcta. Acta Agric. Jiangxi 2014, 26, 61–63+67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Weng, W.S.; Deng, X.R.; He, C.R.; Xu, B.H. Larvae of tephritid flies caused diarrhea 1 case. Chin. J. Parasit. Dis. Control 2004, 17, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Yin, Z.H. Biological Characteristics and Selection to Host Fruit of Neoceratitis asiatica (Becker). Master’s Thesis, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  111. Zhang, Q.Y.; Lin, Z.J.; Liu, J.Y.; Chen, H.Z.; Gao, Q.Z.; Sun, G.K.; Hong, Z.Q.; Sun, D.H.; Chen, J.F. Study on the biology of Bactrocera dorsalis. Entomol. J. East China 1998, 7, 68–71. [Google Scholar]
  112. Xiao, S.; Jiang, X.L.; Zhang, C.L.; Ying, X.S.; Yang, Y.X. Observation of biological characteristics of Bactrocera dorsalis and Zeugodacus cucurbitae in Ruili. Plant Quar. 2001, 15, 332–336. [Google Scholar]
  113. He, S.Y.; Zhu, Y.F.; Satar, A.; Yu, F.; Weng, J.B.; Tian, C.M. Occurrence of Carpomya vesuviana in Turpan region. Chin. Bull. Entomol. 2009, 46, 930–934+822. [Google Scholar]
  114. Xie, Q.; Zhang, R.J. Study advance on biology and ecology of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) and its control. Ecol. Sci. Ecol. Sci. 2005, 24, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Zhang, Q.Y.; Lin, Z.J.; Liu, J.Y.; Lin, X.Y. Biological characteristics of Dacus tau (Walker). Plant Quar. 1991, 5, 164–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yuan, S.Y.; Kong, Q.; Li, Z.Y.; Xiao, C.; Chen, B.; Zhang, D.G. Study on biology of Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae. Acta Agric. Boreali-Occident. Sin. 2005, 14, 43–45+67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. He, W.Z.; Sun, B.Z.; Li, C.J.; Long, Z.B. Bionomics of Bactrocera dorsalis and its control in Hekou County of Yunnan Province. Entomol. Knowl. 2002, 39, 50–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Lin, W.W.; Wang, F.L.; Huang, C.; Wang, X.J.; Li, C.R. Biological characteristics of the Bactrocera minax. Xiandai Hortic. 2012, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Chen, Z.Z. Pupal Diapause Termination of Bactrocera minax and its Parasitoid Biology. Ph.D. Thesis, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  120. Zhao, B.; Su, Z.; Li, S.S.; Men, J.; Cheng, T.M.; Wei, J.R. Biological characteristics of Rhagoletis batava obseuriosa (Diptera: Tephritidae). For. Res. 2017, 30, 576–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Liang, G.Q.; Liang, G.Z.; Lin, M.; Liang, F. Tephritids and Its Prevention; Guangdong Science and Technology Press: Guangzhou, China, 1993; ISBN 7-5359-1197-8. [Google Scholar]
  122. Ma, X.Y.; Wang, M.; Zu, D.; Zhang, C.N.; Yang, Y. Biological characteristics and toxicity determination of Bactrocera cucurbitae. Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2013, 40, 77–79+82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lu, H.X.; He, K.P.; Ruan, H.F.; Mu, B.Z. The biological features of Chinese citrus fly, Dacus citri (Chen). J. Hubei Agric. Coll. 1997, 17, 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  124. Yuan, R.L.; Yang, S.; Wang, X.W.; Chen, P. Test on flight ability of Bactrocera dorsalis. J. West China For. Sci. 2014, 43, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Chen, P.; Ye, H.; Mu, Q.A. Migration and dispersal of the Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis in regions of Nujiang River based on fluorescence mark. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2007, 27, 2468–2476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Li, W.F.; Yang, L.; Tang, K.; Zeng, L.; Liang, G.W. Microsatellite polymorphism of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) populations in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2007, 50, 1255–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Shi, W.; Kerdelhué, C.; Ye, H. Population Genetic Structure of the Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) from Yunnan Province (China) and Nearby Sites across the Border. Genetica 2010, 138, 377–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, Y.Q.; Huang, S.S.; Zeng, D.Q.; Li, Z.L.; Lin, Y. Research progress in host selection of fruit fly. J. South. Agric. 2012, 43, 621–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zhang, X.Y.; Zhou, X.M.; Huang, S.Z.; Han, Q.H.; Lei, C.L. The oviposition preference of Bactrocera (Tetradacus) minax. Entomol. Knowl. 2007, 44, 867–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Ren, L.L.; Qi, L.Y.; Jiang, Q.G.; Zhou, S.D.; Dai, H.G. Oviposition preference of oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. Entomol. Knowl. 2008, 45, 593–597. [Google Scholar]
  131. Tai, H.K.; Li, Z.Y.; Luo, H.Y.; Li, B.; Zhao, X.H.; Sun, W.; Yang, S.S.; Xiao, C. Effect of the color and the solution of sweet bait on the common guava fruit fly. J. Anhui Agric. Sci. 2009, 37, 6481–6482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zheng, X.P.; Liu, Q.S.; Xie, Q.; Zhang, R.J. Influence of larval feeding experience on adult oviposition selectivity of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni 2007, 46, 84–87+102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Yuan, S.Y.; Xiao, C.; Kong, Q.; Chen, B.; Li, Z.Y.; Gao, Y.H. Oviposition prefernce of Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel. Acta Agric. Univ. Jiangxiensis 2005, 27, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Denno, R.F.; McClure, M.S.; Ott, J.R. Interspecific Interactions in Phytophagous Insects: Competition Reexamined and Resurrected. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1995, 40, 297–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Reitz, S.R.; Trumble, J.T. Competitive Displacement among Insects and Arachnids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2002, 47, 435–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Ma, J.; Lin, J.T.; Chen, H.J.; Hu, X.N. The potential role of interspecific competition in fruit fly invasions. J. Environ. Entomol. 2009, 31, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Liu, H. Study of Interspecific Interaction of Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel and Bectrocera correcta Bezzi (Diptera:Tephritidae). Ph.D. Thesis, Southwest Agricultural University, Guangzhou, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  138. Christenson, L.D.; Foote, R.H. Biology of Fruit Flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1960, 5, 171–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Ma, J.; Hu, X.N.; Liu, H.J. Interspecific competition in tephritids flies and their role in invasion. In Proceedings of the Abstracts of the Second National Conference on Biological Invasion, Guangzhou, China, 21–24 November 2008; p. 64. [Google Scholar]
  140. Zhou, C.Q.; Mei, L.Z. Studies of intraspecific competition between Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) and Bactrocera tau (Walk) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni 1999, 38, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zhang, J.L.; Yan, Z.H.; Fang, X.J.; Wu, H.; Liu, H.P.; Zhu, W.L.; Li, A.Q.; Du, Y.; Chen, G.H.; Tao, M. Oviposition selectivity and competitive research on Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) and Bactrocera tau (Walker). J. Yunnan Agric. Univ. Nat. Sci. 2017, 32, 427–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Wu, J.J.; Liu, H.J.; Gu, Y.J.; Hu, X.N.; Li, C.Y. Technical elements of tephritids flies monitoring I. Plant Quar. 2009, 23, 49–51. [Google Scholar]
  143. Kong, D.Y.; Teng, S.N.; Sun, T.; Ye, J. Development of the technique for fruit fly survey. Plant Quar. 2021, 35, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. ISPM 26. Establishment of Pest Free Areas for Fruit Flies (Tephritidae); Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention: Rome, Italy, 2018; p. 60. [Google Scholar]
  145. Li, Z.; Hong, T.S.; Wen, T.; Zhu, Z.C.; Song, S.R.; Sun, D.Z. Design and development of orchard fruit fly monitoring system based on the internet-of-things. J. Hunan Agric. Univ. Nat. Sci. 2015, 41, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Wang, L.Y.; Yang, C.X.; Guo, B.B.; She, D.M.; Mei, X.D.; Yang, X.L.; Ning, J. Research progress and application prospects on insect sex pheromone. Chin. J. Pestic. Sci. 2022, 24, 997–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Metcalf, R.L.; Metcalf, E.R. Plant Kairomones in Insect Ecology and Control. In Contemporary Topics in Entomology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  148. Tan, K.H.; Nishida, R. Zingerone in the Floral Synomone of Bulbophyllum baileyi (Orchidaceae) Attracts Bactrocera Fruit Flies during Pollination. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2007, 35, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Tan, K.H.; Nishida, R. Synomone or Kairomone?-Bulbophyllum apertum Flower Releases Raspberry Ketone to Attract Bactrocera Fruit Flies. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 497–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Tan, K.H.; Tan, L.T.; Nishida, R. Floral Phenylpropanoid Cocktail and Architecture of Bulbophyllum vinaceum Orchid in Attracting Fruit Flies for Pollination. J. Chem. Ecol. 2006, 32, 2429–2441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Tan, K.H.; Nishida, R.; Toong, Y.C. Floral Synomone of a Wild Orchid, Bulbophyllum cheiri, Lures Bactrocera Fruit Flies for Pollination. J. Chem. Ecol. 2002, 28, 1161–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Nishida, R.; Tan, K.H.; Wee, S.L.; Hee, A.K.W.; Toong, Y.C. Phenylpropanoids in the Fragrance of the Fruit Fly Orchid, Bulbophyllum cheiri, and Their Relationship to the Pollinator, Bactrocera papayae. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2004, 32, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Park, S.J.; Faveri, S.G.D.; Cheesman, J.; Hanssen, B.L.; Cameron, D.N.S.; Jamie, I.M.; Taylor, P.W. Zingerone in the Flower of Passiflora maliformis Attracts an Australian Fruit Fly, Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon). Molecules 2020, 25, 2877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Li, Y.W.; Zhou, P.; Zhang, J.H.; Yang, D.; Li, Z.H.; Zhang, X.L.; Zhu, S.F.; Yu, Y.X.; Chen, N.Z. Identification of Odorant Binding Proteins in Carpomya vesuviana and Their Binding Affinity to the Male-Borne Semiochemicals and Host Plant Volatiles. J. Insect Physiol. 2017, 100, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Zhou, Q.; Liu, L.; You, K.X.; Jing, Q. A Kind of Sex Pheromone and Its Extraction Method and Application for Citrus Fruit Fly. Invention Patent CN103766336A; Hunan Normal University, Changsha, China, 7 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
  156. Du, Y.G.; Chen, J.H.; Ji, Q.E. The attraction of one new protein for Bactrocera dorsalis. J. Fujian Coll. For. 2007, 27, 259–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Liu, J.M.; Dong, M.H.; Du, Y.G.; Dai, H.J.; Han, J.H. Killing effect of beer waste yeast hydrolysate protein combined with borax on Bactrocera dorsalis. Shandong Agric. Sci. 2013, 45, 110–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Yang, Q.Y. Research on the Behavioral Responses of Bactrocera dorsalis to the Volatile Compounds from Protein Bait. Master’s Thesis, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  159. Yang, Q.Y.; Idrees, A.; Du, Y.G.; Ji, Q.E.; Cai, P.M.; Gu, X.H.; Wang, B.; Chen, J.H. Attraction of 7 volatile compounds from spent brewer’s yeast enzymatic hydrolysate to adult Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). J. Fujian Agric. For. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2016, 45, 505–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Xiao, C.; Jiang, X.L.; Ye, W.F.; Zhou, L.B. Effect of sugar on the effect of hydrolyzed protein on the trapping of tephritids flies. In Proceedings of the Abstracts of the Third National Congress on Biological Invasions, Haikou, China, 26 November 2010; p. 384. [Google Scholar]
  161. Zhou, X.W.; Niu, C.Y.; Han, P.; Desneux, N. Field Evaluation of Attractive Lures for the Fruit Fly Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Their Potential Use in Spot Sprays in Hubei Province (China). J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 1277–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Su, R.R.; Yi, X.L.; Liu, J.M.; Zheng, X.L.; Lu, W.; Wang, X.Y. Progress in research on natural enemies of the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis and the application of these in the biological control of this pest. Chin. J. Appl. Entomol. 2021, 58, 1026–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Lin, L.; Huang, J.C.; Chen, J.H.; Ji, Q.E.; Yang, J.Q. Parasitical efficiency of Diachasmimorpha longicaudata on Bactrocera dorsalis. Entomol. J. East China 2006, 15, 288–290. [Google Scholar]
  164. Geng, J.L.; Yang, J.Q.; Zheng, M.L.; Huang, J.C.; Ji, Q.E.; Chen, J.H. Effects of agar to water ration on the parasite efficiency of Fopius sriasnus. J. Fujian Coll. For. 2009, 29, 166–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Liu, J.M.; Huang, Q.C.; Deng, T.J.; Yang, Z.Q.; Lu, W. Field Control of Bactrocera dorsalis by artificial release with Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead). Guangdong Agric. Sci. 2021, 48, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Huang, J.C.; Ji, Q.E.; Yang, J.Q.; Chen, J.H.; Guo, Q.L.; Geng, J.L. Successful introduction of the dominant species of the parasitic wasp for Bactrocera dorsalis, Fopius arisanus (Sonan) in China. In Proceedings of the Abstracts of the First National Conference on Biological Invasion, Fuzhou, China, 7 December 2007; p. 251. [Google Scholar]
  167. Guo, Q.L.; Chen, J.H.; Lan, H.B.; Ji, Q.E.; Lin, W.C.; Pan, Y.H.; Zhuang, M.S. Parasitical efficiency of Fopius arisanus on eggs of Bactrocera dorsalis. Chin. J. Trop. Agric. 2015, 35, 51–52+59. [Google Scholar]
  168. Sun, G.K.; Chen, J.F.; Zhang, Q.Y.; Lin, Z.J. Preliminary report on integrated control trials of Bactrocera dorsalis. Entomol. J. East China 2000, 9, 115–118. [Google Scholar]
  169. Bai, Q.; Song, F.M. Preliminary report on the occurrence and control of mango damage of Bactrocera dorsalis. Guangxi Trop. Agric. 1997, 19–22. Available online: https://oversea.cnki.net/kns/manage/export?filename=rdnk199704007&dbname=CJFD9697 (accessed on 2 January 2023).
  170. McGraw, E.A.; O’Neill, S.L. Beyond Insecticides: New Thinking on an Ancient Problem. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Lees, R.S.; Gilles, J.R.L.; Hendrichs, J.; Vreysen, M.J.B.; Bourtzis, K. Back to the Future: The Sterile Insect Technique against Mosquito Disease Vectors. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2015, 10, 156–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Bouyer, J.; Culbert, N.J.; Dicko, A.H.; Pacheco, M.G.; Virginio, J.; Pedrosa, M.C.; Garziera, L.; Pinto, A.T.M.; Klaptocz, A.; Germann, J.; et al. Field Performance of Sterile Male Mosquitoes Released from an Uncrewed Aerial Vehicle. Sci. Robot. 2020, 5, eaba6251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Bouyer, J.; Yamada, H.; Pereira, R.; Bourtzis, K.; Vreysen, M.J.B. Phased Conditional Approach for Mosquito Management Using Sterile Insect Technique. Trends Parasitol. 2020, 36, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Cai, C.H. The Effects of Gut Microbiota on the Growth and the Repair of Irradiated Damage in Bactrocera dorsalis. Ph.D. Thesis, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  175. Wang, H.S.; Zhao, C.D.; Li, H.X.; Lou, H.Z.; Liu, Q.R.; Kang, W.; Hu, J.G.; Zhang, H.Q.; Chu, J.M.; Xia, D.R.; et al. Effectiveness of radiation sterile technology for the control of citrus flies, Dacus citris. J. Nucl. Agric. Sci. 1990, 4, 135–138. [Google Scholar]
  176. Wang, H.S.; Hu, J.G.; Lu, D.G.; Kang, W.; Zhang, H.Q. Demonstration trial of using radiation sterile technology to control citrus flies, Dacus citris. Chin. J. Biol. Control. 1995, 11, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Hu, J.F.; Yang, J.Q.; Chen, J.H.; Huang, J.C.; Ji, Q.E.; He, R.B. Effect of releasing sterile male of oriental fruit fly in the field. J. Fujian Agric. For. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 2011, 40, 582–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Ye, W.D.; Li, F.; Zou, Y.X.; Wu, S.Y.; Wu, X.X. Origin and development of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) concept. South China Agric. 2022, 16, 30–32+42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Lv, J.Y.; Meng, Z.J. The olfactory recognition mechanism of herbivore insects on plant volatiles: A review. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2022, 38, 122–129. [Google Scholar]
Insects 14 00196 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of tephritid fruit flies in each province of China. The size of the solid circles in the figure represents the species number of tephritid fruit flies. Colors in the figure represent different regions (Red, yellow, green, blue, purple, and pink represent North, Central, South, East, Southwest, and Northwest China respectively). Abbreviations: AH, Anhui; CQ, Chongqing Shi; FJ, Fujian; GD, Guangdong; GX, Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu; GZ, Guizhou; HA, Henan; HB, Hubei; HI, Hainan; HK, Hong Kong; HN, Hunan; JS, Jiangsu; JX Jiangxi; NM, Nei Mongol Zizhiqu; SC, Sichuan; SH, Shanghai Shi; SN, Shaanxi, SX, Shanxi; XJ Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, TW, Taiwan; YN, Yunnan; ZJ, Zhejiang. The map data was generated by Geospatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn, accessed on 4 February 2022) and Alibaba Cloud (DataV.GeoAtlas, http://datav.aliyun.com/portal/school/atlas/area_selector, accessed on 4 February 2022). The spatial analysis function was via ArcGIS (version 10.7) and Mapshaper (https://mapshaper.org, accessed on 4 February 2022).
Figure 1. Distribution of tephritid fruit flies in each province of China. The size of the solid circles in the figure represents the species number of tephritid fruit flies. Colors in the figure represent different regions (Red, yellow, green, blue, purple, and pink represent North, Central, South, East, Southwest, and Northwest China respectively). Abbreviations: AH, Anhui; CQ, Chongqing Shi; FJ, Fujian; GD, Guangdong; GX, Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu; GZ, Guizhou; HA, Henan; HB, Hubei; HI, Hainan; HK, Hong Kong; HN, Hunan; JS, Jiangsu; JX Jiangxi; NM, Nei Mongol Zizhiqu; SC, Sichuan; SH, Shanghai Shi; SN, Shaanxi, SX, Shanxi; XJ Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu, TW, Taiwan; YN, Yunnan; ZJ, Zhejiang. The map data was generated by Geospatial Data Cloud (https://www.gscloud.cn, accessed on 4 February 2022) and Alibaba Cloud (DataV.GeoAtlas, http://datav.aliyun.com/portal/school/atlas/area_selector, accessed on 4 February 2022). The spatial analysis function was via ArcGIS (version 10.7) and Mapshaper (https://mapshaper.org, accessed on 4 February 2022).
Insects 14 00196 g001
Table 1. Distribution of tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China (based on the provincial level).
Table 1. Distribution of tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China (based on the provincial level).
Specific NameRegionsProvincesNative RangeFirst ReportedReferences
Bactrocera correctaEastTaiwanIndia and South-East Asia1982, Yunnan[10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]
SouthGuangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu
SouthwestSichuan (only detected in Miyi County) and Yunnan
Bactrocera dorsalisCentralHubei and HunanSouth-East China1911, Taiwan[16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]
EastAnhui, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai Shi ⊙, Jiangxi, Fujian and Taiwan
SouthGuangdong, Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu, Hainan and Hong Kong ●
SouthwestGuizhou, Sichuan, Chongqing Shi ⊙ and Yunnan
Bactrocera latifrons
(only
captured by
bait traps)		EastFujian and TaiwanSouth-East Asia-[16,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]
SouthHainan, Guangdong and Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu
SouthwestGuizhou and Yunnan
Bactrocera minaxNorthwestShaanxiChina-[44,45,46,47,48,49]
EastJiangxi and Taiwan
CentralHubei and Hunan
SouthGuangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu
SouthwestGuizhou, Sichuan, and Yunnan
Bactrocera tsuneonisEastTaiwanEast Asia1940, Sichuan[16,20,50,51,52,53,54]
CentralHunan
SouthwestGuizhou, Sichuan, and Yunnan
Zeugodacus
scutellatus
(only
captured by
bait traps)		NorthShanxiEast Asia1912, Taiwan[16,52,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]
NorthwestShaanxi (only 6 adults captured by bait traps in 1984)
EastAnhui, Jiangxi, Fujian and Taiwan
CentralHenan, Hubei and Hunan
SouthGuangdong, Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu and Hainan
SouthwestGuizhou, Sichuan, Chongqing Shi ⊙ and Yunnan
Carpomya vesuvianaNorthwestXinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu (currently limited in Turpan region and under official control)India2007, Xinjiang (Turpan)[65,66]
Rhagoletis batava obseuriosaNorthNei Mongol ZizhiquRussia1985, Liaoning[67,68,69]
NorthwestShaanxi and Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu
Zeugodacus cucurbitaeEastZhejiang, Jiangxi, Fujian and TaiwanIndia1960, Taiwan[16,39,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]
CentralHubei and Hunan
SouthGuangdong, Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu, Hainan, and Hong Kong ●
SouthwestGuizhou, Sichuan Chongqing Shi ⊙ and Yunnan
Zeugodacus tauEastZhejiang, Jiangxi, Fujian and TaiwanAsia1912, Guangdong and Yunnan[16,59,77,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]
CentralHenan, Hubei and Hunan
SouthGuangdong, Guangxi Zhuangzu Zizhiqu and Hainan
SouthwestGuizhou, Sichuan, Chongqing Shi ⊙ and Yunnan
Notes: “⊙” represents municipalities directly under the control of the Central Government, and “●” represents special administrative regions (SAR).
Table 2. Records of host plants of tephritid fruit flies in China.
Table 2. Records of host plants of tephritid fruit flies in China.
Tephritid SpeciesPlant TypePlant FamilyPlant SpeciesDegree of DamageReferences
Bactrocera
correcta		FruitAnacardiaceaeAnacardium occidentalend[3,94,95]
Mangifera indica+++
AnnonaceaeAnnona squamosa++
CombretaceaeTerminalia catappand
MusaceaeMusa nana++
MyrtaceaePsidium guajava+++
Syzygium samarangensend
OxalidaceaeAverrhoa carambola+++
RhamnaceaeZiziphus jujuband
Ziziphus mauritiana++
RosaceaePrunus salicina+
Prunus spp.nd
Pseudocydonia sinensis++
Pyrus pyrifolia+
RutaceaeCitrus maxima+
Citrus reticulata++
Citrus sinensis+
SapotaceaeManilkara zapotand
VegetableCucurbitaceaeCucumis sativus+
Momordica charantia++
SolanaceaeCapsicum annuum+
Solanum lycopersicum+
Solanum melongena+
Bactrocera
dorsalis		FruitActinidiaceaeActinidia fulvicoma+[96,97,98]
AnacardiaceaeMangifera indica+/++++
AnnonaceaeDesmos chinensis+
EbenaceaeDiospyros kaki+
Diospyros morrisiana++
Diospyros tutcheri+
EuphorbiaceaePhyllanthus emblica+
MelastomataceaeMelastoma dodecandrum+
MoraceaeBroussonetia kaempferi+
Broussonetia papyrifera+
Ficus hirta+
Ficus sagittata+
MusaceaeMusa nanand
MyricaceaeMyrica rubra++
MyrtaceaeAcmena acuminatissima+
Cleistocalyx operculatus++
Psidium guajava+++/++++
Rhodomyrtus tomentosa++
Syzygium jambos++++
Syzygium levinei+
Syzygium samarangense++++
OxalidaceaeAverrhoa carambola+++
PunicaceaePunica granatum+++
RhamnaceaeZiziphus jujuba++++
Ziziphus spp.nd
RhizophoraceaeCarallia brachiata++
RosaceaeAmygdalus davidiana++
Duchesnea indica+
Eriobotrya fragrans+
Eriobotrya japonica++/++++
Malus pumila+
Prunus mume+
Prunus persica+/++++
Prunus phaeosticta+
Prunus salicina+
Pseudocydonia sinensis+
Pyrus calleryana+
Pyrus pyrifolia+
Rubus leucanthus+
Rubus reflexus+
Rubus rosifolius+
Rubus sumatranus+
RutaceaeCitrus limon+
Citrus maxima+
Citrus reticulata+++
Clausena lansium++
Fortunella hindsii++
SapotaceaeManilkara zapota+
VitaceaeCayratia japonica+
Vitis amurensis+
Vitis vinifera+
VegetableCucurbitaceaeCucumis melo+
Cucumis sativus++
Cucurbita moschata+
Luffa aegyptiaca++++
Momordica charantia+
Sechium edule+
SolanaceaeCapsicum annuum+
Solanum lycopersicum++
Solanum melongena+
Bactrocera latifronsVegetableSolanaceaeCapsicum annuum+[33,99,100]
Solanum melongena+
Bactrocera
minax		FruitRutaceaeCitrus aurantiumnd[47]
Citrus erythrosand
Citrus junosnd
Citrus limonnd
Citrus maxima+++/++++
Citrus medica+++/++++
Citrus paradisind
Citrus poonensis+/++++
Citrus reticulatand
Citrus sinensis+/++/+++/++++
Citrus tangerina+/+++
Citrus unshiu+/++/+++/++++
Fortunella margaritand
Poncirus trifoliatand
Bactrocera
tsuneonis		FruitRutaceaeCitrus aurantiumnd[101,102]
Citrus reticulatand
Citrus sinensisnd
Fortunella japonicand
Carpomya
vesuviana		FruitRhamnaceaeZiziphus spp.nd[65]
Rhagoletis
batava
obseuriosa		FruitElaeagnaceaeHippophae spp.nd[68]
Zeugodacus
cucurbitae		VegetableCucurbitaceaeBenincasa hispidand[97,103]
Citrullus lanatusnd
Cucumis sativus++++
Cucurbita moschatand
Cucurbita pepond
Luffa aegyptiaca++++
Momordica charantia++
Sechium edule++
Zeugodacus scutellatusVegetableCucurbitaceaeCucurbitaceae flowersnd[16,104]
Zeugodacus
tau		VegetableCucurbitaceaeBenincasa hispidand[97,105,106]
Citrullus lanatus++
Cucumis sativus+/++
Cucurbita moschata++/+++/++++
Cucurbita pepond
Luffa aegyptiaca+/++
Momordica charantia+
Sechium edule++
Notes: “+” represents the degree of damage (<10%: +, 10–30%: ++, 30–50%: +++, >50%: ++++); “nd” represents there is no record of the degree of harm although there is a host; “p” represents possible hosts.
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

He, Y.; Xu, Y.; Chen, X. Biology, Ecology and Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies in China: A Review. Insects 2023, 14, 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020196

AMA Style

He Y, Xu Y, Chen X. Biology, Ecology and Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies in China: A Review. Insects. 2023; 14(2):196. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020196

Chicago/Turabian Style

He, Yuxin, Yijuan Xu, and Xiao Chen. 2023. "Biology, Ecology and Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies in China: A Review" Insects 14, no. 2: 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020196

APA Style

He, Y., Xu, Y., & Chen, X. (2023). Biology, Ecology and Management of Tephritid Fruit Flies in China: A Review. Insects, 14(2), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14020196

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