BIBLIOGRAPHY BASINGAN, EIRA A....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BASINGAN, EIRA A. Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and
Vegetables as Fruit Fly Attractant. Benguet State University. La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Gemma S. Das-ilen, MSc.,
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Mites Predatory Rearing House, Pomology
citrus plantation and zucchini plantations at the organic demo farm at Balili, La
Trinidad, Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011 to determine the population and
species of fruit fly trapped in the attractant; to identify families of other insects
trapped in the attractants and to determine the duration of consumption of the
different attractants.
A total of 23 fruit flies were attracted to the trap. All treatments used in the
study were found effective in attracting fruit flies. Treatments 4 (mango) and 9 (bell
pepper) has the highest trapped fruit fly. There was a total population of 15, 881
insects trapped in all of the attractants with a mean of 5, 293.67.
There were three species of fruit flies trapped in the attractant which are the
Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel, Rhagoletis sp. and the Bactrocera cucurbitae with total
trapped population of 23, where 17 of which are females and 6 are males.
Other insects trapped belong to 6 orders and 26 families. It was proven from
the study that all treatments were effective in trapping fruit flies.
The attractant is effective however it was consumed in 10 days.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….. i
Abstract ……..…………………………………………………………………..
i
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………..
ii
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE …………………………………………………...
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS ………………………………………………..
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………………………...
10
Population of Trapped Fruit fly …………………………….……….....
10
Species of Fruit Fly Trapped……………………………………………
10
Families of Insects Trapped in the Attractant ………..………………..
11
Duration of Consumption of the Attractants …………………………...
11
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ………………….
21
Summary ………………………………………………………………... 21
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………
22
Recommendation ……………………………………………………….. 22
LITERATURE CITED ………………………………………………………….
23
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………... 25
1
INTRODUCTION
Fruit
fly
(Bactrocera spp.) is one among the many destructive insect pests
damaging fruits in the Philippines. They are small, yellowish flies that are commonly
attracted to fermenting fruit of all kinds. The adult fruit fly which is noticeably larger
than a housefly, is very variable but there are prominent yellow and dark brown to black
markings on the thorax. Among the Tephtritidae, the female fruit fly inserts its needle-
like ovipositor and lays its eggs into the fruit. The maggots that hatch out of the eggs feed
and destroy the tissue in the fruit. Apparently, ripe fruits are preferred for oviposition, but
immature ones may also be attacked (Mau and Matin, 2005). Principal fruit hosts are
avocado, apple, mango, peach, pear, citrus, coffee, and especially guava. Among
vegetables are pepper, tomato, and watermelon (Capinera, 2001).
In La Trinidad, fruit fly damages numerous fruits and vegetables (Kudan, 2007).
Economic effects of pest species include not only direct loss of yield and increased
control costs, but also the loss of export markets and/or the cost of constructing and
maintaining fruit treatment and eradication facilities. The increase of productivity has
always been the primary concern in every agricultural and rural developmental efforts.
Various methods and technology systems has been employed and looked into as possible
solutions to ensure high yields. Most of them come at a certain price. Because of these,
experiment on the different fermented locally available and cheap fruits and vegetables
should be conducted since pesticides are expensive.
The study was conducted to determine the population and species of fruit fly and
other insects trapped in the attractant; to identify families of other insects trapped in the
attractants and to determine the duration of consumption of the different attractants.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
2
The study was conducted at the Mites Predator Rearing House, Pomology Citrus
Plantation and zucchini plantations at the organic demo farm at Balili, La Trinidad,
Benguet. The study was conducted from January 2011 to March 2011.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Kinds of Attractants
Chemical Attractant. Pheromones are semio-chemicals that are produced and
received by members of the same species, this has a great influence on the behavior and
biological processes of insects. Pheromones are produced synthetically and are used in
different ways. It can be used as a lure in traps used to monitor pest populations.
Pheromones also disrupt mating (Birch and Hayes, 1982).
Plant-based Attractant. These are attractants which generally introduced to plants.
These hybrid plants can attract and kill pest that are attacking them. One example is the
attractin, a patented environmentally friendly, non-toxic, plant-based attractant which
effectively attracts fruit flies including olive and orange fruit fly pest, attractin does not
affect honeybees. Attractin was developed by Natural-Agro in 2001 (Birch and Hayes,
1982).
Natural Insect Attractants. Nigg et al. (2005) mentioned that extracts of cattle
guava was equal in attractiveness to males and females especially with Carribean fruit
fly, Anastrepha suspense Loew. It was also suggested that host chemicals serve as
attractants and the female and male specific attractant and traps could be developed from
host kairomone data.
In 2007, Prasad stated that traps baited with some attractive material namely
fermented sugar, molasses and poisoned with chemicals have also been found effective in
capturing fruit fly adults. In Hawaii, Dekker and Messing (n.d) reported that homemade
mixes of vinegar and water and yeast have attracted both males and females of Dipteran
species.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
4
Natural insect attractant (NIA) is a mixture of mascuvado sugar and vinegar (1K
sugar, 1li vinegar, and 3li water). It can be placed inside a recycled plastic container,
improvised for the purpose, and place in strategic position advantageous to catch flies,
insects, etc. The natural insect attractant is also excellent in household use; it can
practically be placed near open spout, open garbage bin, or a place you knew there is
possible presence of insects (McNew, 2009).
Characteristics of B. dorsalis
The adult is a clear winged fly with a wingspan of 5.3-7.3 mm and a body length
of 6.0-8.0 millimeter (Teparkum, 1998 and Weems and Heppner 2004 ). Viewed from
above, the overall color of the abdomen is basically light brown with dark brown
transverse bands and the thorax dark brown with conspicuous markings of yellow or
occasionally white. The white spindled-shaped eggs are 1.2 mm in length and 0.2 mm in
width. The young maggots are white and when fully-grown are yellowish and about 10.0
mm in length.
The color of the fly is very variable, but there are prominent yellow and dark
brown to black markings on the thorax. Generally, the abdomen has two horizontal black
stripes and a longitudinal median stripe extending from the base of the third segment to
the apex of the abdomen. These markings may form a T-shaped pattern, but the pattern
varies considerably. The ovipositor is very slender and sharply pointed (Weems and
Heppner, 2004).
Host Plants of B. dorsalis
B. dorsalis occurs on a wide range of fruit crops, apples, bananas, guavas,
mangoes, oranges, pawpaws, peaches, plums, and tomatoes (Clausen et al., 1965).
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
5
Likewise,
the
Bactrocera dorsalis attacks over 300 cultivated and wild fruits
including, tomato, banana (Clausen et al., 1965 and Newell and Haramoto, 1968), bitter
melon, citrus, coffee, guava, macadamia, mango, papaya, passion fruit, peppers, avocado,
persimmon, and Annona (cherimoya, atemoya, sugar apple). This pest will apparently
breed in all fleshly fruits. It does not attack cucurbit crops such as cucumber and squash
(Newell and Haramoto, 1968).
The
B. dorsalis has been recorded from more than 150 kinds of fruit and
vegetables, including citrus, guava, mango, papaya, avocado, banana (Clausen et al.,
1965 and Newell and Haramoto, 1968), loquat, tomato, surinam cherry, rose-apple,
passion fruit persimmon, pineapple, peach, pear, apricot, fig, and coffee. Avocado, and
mango, are the most commonly attacked (Weems and Hepner, 2004).
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ)
Ripe citrus, guava (native variety), strawberry, mango, papaya, and banana, were
fermented as fruit attractants while chayote, tomato, bell pepper, and cucumber were
fermented as vegetable attractants. Two kilos of each fruit and vegetables were used.
These fruits and vegetables were chopped using a knife and chopping board.
There were ten plastic pail containers with 5 liter capacity used. Each container was
assigned to each of the chopped fruits and vegetables. Likewise, two kilograms of
chopped banana trunk (cardava variety) and one kilo of muscovado sugar was added in
each container and was mixed thoroughly. Hence, each container contains two kilograms
of chopped fruit or vegetable plus one kilogram of muscovado and two kilograms of
chopped banana trunk. Each of the containers was covered with a clean manila paper, and
tied with a rubber band. It was stored in a cool dry place for 7 days for fermentation.
After fermentation, the extract was collected using the plastic pail container and a clean
cloth that served as a strainer. Then it was squeezed to further collect the liquid extracts
that the latter absorbed.
Vinegar Juice (VJ)
Vinegar juice is the mixture of five gallons of crude vinegar mixed with 2 ½
grounded muscovado sugar. The crude vinegar is used to enhance the aroma of the
attractant and was believed to drive away and lessen beneficial insects that will be
trapped. The five gallons of crude vinegar and 2 ½ grounded muscovado sugar was
placed in a cooking pot and was heated until it boils. When the muscovado sugar was
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
7
totally diluted and mixed, it was set aside for cooling and added to the fruit and vegetable
extract during trapping.
The Trap
The ratio of 1:1 (150 ml fruit or vegetable extracts (FPJ) + 150 ml crude vinegar
with muscovado sugar (VJ)) was used. These concentrations were poured on the trap.
Thirty-three 1.5 coke containers was used as trapping material. Each of the containers
was prepared by making two opening in each side leaving 5.08 cm from the bottom. The
cut side of the coke container served as entrance of the insect. A styrofoam plate
measuring 22.86 cm diameter was placed on top of the trap to protect the FPJ and VJ
dilution from rain water when it rains. A string was tied to the tip of the container, and
was hanged using sticks, 15.24 cm above the ground on strawberry and zucchini plants
and at the middle of the fruits on citrus trees. The trap was replicated three times and was
distributed randomly. One hundred fifty milliliters of the treatments, which are citrus,
guava, strawberry, mango, papaya, banana, chayote, tomato, bell pepper and cucumber
extract was added with 150 ml vinegar juice. Complete Randomized Design (CRD)
single factorial was used in the statistical analysis of the treatments. Plain water was
introduced as untreated. The treatments were as follows:
T0 – 300 ml water
T1 – 150 ml citrus extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T2 – 150 ml guava extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T3 – 150 ml strawberry extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T4 – 150 ml mango extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T5 – 150 ml papaya extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
8
T6 – 150 ml banana extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T7 – 150 ml chayote extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T8 – 150 ml tomato extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T9 – 150 ml bell pepper extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T10 – 150 ml cucumber extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
Population of Fruit fly and other Insects Trapped in the Attractant
The population of fruit fly and other insects attracted to the trap was recorded.
Collection of trapped insects was done everyday using a screen scoop for the trapped
insects to be fresh, body parts intact and visible for easier identification.
Duration of Consumption of the Attractant
The duration of the trap was gathered by counting the number of days from set up
until the trap is consumed. The duration is commonly affected by evaporation,
temperature and weather.
Identification of the Trapped Insects
The collected insects were spread on a bond paper to dry, to be sorted and were
identified using microscope (if necessary) and were documented using a digital camera.
The insects were identified from order to family using entomology books and internet.
Fruit fly species is identified using the thorax as a basis.
Data Gathered
1.
Number and species of fruit fly trapped. Fruit flies trapped were identified
into species.
2. Population of trapped insects. This refers to the number of fruit fly and
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
9
other insects trapped in the attractant.
3. Duration of the attractant. This refers to how long the trap is effective in
trapping insects.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Population of Trapped Fruit fly
The mean population of the trapped fruit fly in each treatment is presented in
Table 1. The statistical analysis shows that the population of fruit flies trapped on the
different attractants is not significantly different. However, numerically the population of
trapped fruit flies was observed highest on treatments 4 (mango) fermented fruit and
treatment 9 (bell pepper) fermented vegetable followed by treatments 6, 5, 3 and 2, 8 and
1, 10 and 7 and water.
As observed, there were no fruit flies trapped on water indicating that the
formulated attractants used were effective in attracting fruit flies.
The Table 1. also shows that there were 17 fruit flies trapped on the fermented
fruits (T1-T6) while 6 were from fermented vegetables (T7-T10), though statistically not
significant from each other.
The total number of fruit flies trapped on the attractants also indicates that the
fruit flies trapped were attracted on the aroma of the fermented fruit on to which fruits are
suitable for egg deposition.
Species of Fruit fly Trapped
The species of fruit flies trapped in the attractant is shown in Table 2. The
statistical analysis shows that the number of fruit flies on the different attractants is not
significantly different. However, numerically the population of trapped female fruit flies
was observed highest on T4 (mango) as corroborated by Weems and Hepner, 2004 that
mangoes are the most commonly attacked by fruit flies. This was followed by T6
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
11
(banana) and T9 (bell pepper) which has a total of 3 fruit flies, T2 (guava) and T3
(strawberry) which is 2 and T1 (citrus) and T8 (tomato) with 1 population respectively.
There were three species of fruit flies trapped on the different attractants which
are the Bactrocera dorsalis (Figure 1), Rhagoletis sp. (Figure 2) and the Bactrocera
cucurbitae (Figure 3).
Table 1. The mean population of trapped fruit flies on the different attractants
TREATMENTS TOTAL
MEAN
T0 (water)
0
0.00b
T1 (citrus)
1
0.33a
T2 (guava)
2
0.67a
T3 (strawberry)
2
0.67a
T4 (mango)
5
1.67a
T5 (papaya)
3
1.00a
T6 (banana)
4
1.33a
SUB TOTAL
17
5.67a
T7 (chayote)
0
0.00b
T8 (tomato)
1
0.33a
T9 (bell pepper)
5
1.67a
T10 (cucumber)
0
0.00b
SUB TOTAL
6
2.00a
TOTAL 23
ns=CV=41.56%
Means with the same letter is not significantly different at 5% level of significance
(DMRT)
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
12
Table 2. The mean of the different sexes of fruit fly species trapped on the different
treatments
TREATMENT NUMBER
OF
SEX
TOTAL MEAN
FRUIT FLY
F M
T0 (water)
0
0 0 0 0.00b
T1 (citrus)
1
1 0 1 0.33a
T2 (guava)
2
2 0 2 0.67a
T3 (strawberry)
2
2 0 3 0.67a
T4 (mango)
5
4 1 5 1.67a
T5 (papaya)
3
2 1 3 1.00a
T6 (banana)
4
3 1 4 1.33a
T7 (chayote)
0
0 0 0 0.00b
T8 (tomato)
1
0 1 1 0.33a
T9 (bell pepper)
3
3 2 3 0.67a
T10 (cucumber)
0
0 0 0 0.00b
Figure 1. Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel species,
Adult male (left) and female (right) (10x)
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
13
Figure 2. Adult female Rhagoletis sp. (10x) Figure 3. Adult male Bactrocera
cucurbitae species (10x)
Families of Insects Trapped in the Attractant
The mean population of trapped insects on the different treatments shows on
Table 3. The statistical analysis shows that the number of insects trapped on the different
attractants is not significantly different. However, numerically among the treatments,
treatment 1, which is citrus extract, gains the highest trapped population of trapped
insects with a mean of 830.33. This is followed by T9 (bell pepper), T8 (tomato), T10
(cucumber), T7 (chayote), T2 (guava), T3 (strawberry), T5 (papaya), T4 (mango) and
lastly, T6 (banana).
It was apparently shown in the table that all the treatments were effective in
trapping insects where in it shows that all are numerically significant but statistical
analysis revealed that all the means of the trapped insects were all not significantly
different.
The insects trapped in the attractants belonged to 6 orders. These were order
Coleoptera which consists of family: Chrysomelidae (Figures 4-6), Coccinelidae (Figures
7-8), Nitidulidae (Figure 9), Scarabaeidae (Figure 10) and Staphylinidae (Figure 11).
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
14
Order Diptera, family Calliphoridae (Figure 12), Chironomidae (Figure 13), Culicidae
(Figure 14), Drosophilidae (Figure 15), Muscidae (Figure 16), Scatopsidae (Figure 17),
Sepsidae (Figure 18), Tabanidae (Figure 19), Tipulidae (Figure 20), and Micropezidae
(Figure 21). Order: Hemiptera family Cicadellidae (Figure 22). Order: Hymenoptera
Family Apidae (Figure 23), Braconidae (Figure 24), Formicidae (Figure 25), and
Ichnuemonidae (Figure 26). Order: Lepidoptera family Noctuidae (Figure 27),
Nymphalidae (Figure 28), Plutellidae (Figure 29) and Sesiidae (Figure 30). Order:
Neuroptera family Hemerobiidae (Figure 31) and Order: Thysanoptera family Thripidae
(Figure 32).
Table 3. The mean population of trapped insects on the different treatments
TREATMENT TOTAL
MEAN
T0 (water)
0
0.00b
T1 (citrus)
2 941
830.33a
T2 (guava)
1 417
472.33a
T3 (strawberry)
1 384
461.33a
T4 (mango)
1 207
402.33a
T5 (papaya)
1 341
447a
T6 (banana)
1 155
385a
T7 (chayote)
1 473
491a
T8 (tomato)
1 558
519.33a
T9 (bell pepper)
2 376
792a
T10 (cucumber)
1 479
493a
SUB TOTAL
15 881
5 293.67a
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
15
Figure 4. Adult Chrysomelid Beetle
Figure 5. Adult Flea Beetle
Family: Chrysomelidae Family: Chrysomelidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Figure 6. Adult Spotted Tortoise Beetle Figure 7. Adult Lady Bird Beetle
Family: Chrysomelidae Family: Coccinelidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Figure 8. Adult Lady Bird Beetle Figure 9. Adult Sap Beetle
Family: Coccinelidae Family: Nitidulidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
16
Figure 10. Adult June Beetle Figure 11. Adult Rove Beetle
Family: Scarabaeidae Family: Staphylinidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Figure 12. Adult Blowfly Figure 13. Adult Midge
Family: Calliphoridae Family: Chironomidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Figure 14. Adult Mosquito fly Figure 15. Vinegar Fly
Family: Culicidae Family: Drosophilidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
17
Figure 16. Adult House Fly Figure 17. Adult Black Scavenger Fly
Family: Muscidae Family: Scatopsidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Figure 18. Adult Ant fly Figure 19. Adult Horse fly
Family: Sepsidae Family: Tabanidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Figure 20. Adult Crane Fly Figure 21. Adult Stilt Leg
Family: Tipulidae Family: Micropezidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
18
Figure 22. Adult Plant Hopper Figure 23. Adult Honey Bee
Family: Cicadellidae Family: Apidae
Order: Hemiptera Order: Hymenoptera
Figure 24. Adult Braconid Wasp Figure 25. Adult Ant
Family: Braconidae Family: Formicidae
Order: Hymenoptera Order: Hymenoptera
Figure 26. Adult Diadegma Figure 27. Adult Cutworm Moth
Family: Ichneumonidae Family: Noctuidae
Order: Hymenoptera Order: Lepidoptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
19
Figure 28. Adult Nymphalid Butterfly Figure 29. Adult Diamond Back Moth
Family: Nymphalidae Family: Plutellidae
Order: Lepidoptera Order: Lepidoptera
Figure 30. Adult Clear-winged Moth Figure 31. Adult Brown Lacewing
Family: Sesiidae Family: Hemerobiidae
Order: Lepidoptera Order: Neuroptera
Figure 32. Adult Thrips
Family: Thripidae
Order: Thysanoptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
20
Duration of Consumption of the Attractants
The duration of efficacy of the attractants is indicated in Figure 33. The graph
shows that regardless of treatment in the attractants, there was a decreasing number of
insects trapped in day 2 and increased in day 3 and gradually decreasing from days 4 to
10, except treatment 9 which increased in day 1 while gradually decreasing from days 2
to 10.
Nevertheless, it is apparent as presented in the graph that the attractants are
decreasing in effectiveness relative to the advancement of time which started from day 3
of the treatments while day 2 in treatment 9. The graph shows that the different
treatments (T1-T10) are effective in trapping insects however the trap was consumed in 10
days.
180
160
T0 (Water)
140
T1 (Citrus)
T2 (Guava)
120
T3 (Strawberry)
100
T4 (Mango)
T5 (Papaya)
80
T6 (Banana)
60
T7 (Chayote)
T8 (Tomato)
40
T9 (Bell Pepper)
T10 (Cucumber)
20
0
Day1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10
Figure 33. The duration (days) of the attractants set on the zucchini, citrus and
strawberry plants (Jan. 28, 2011-March 2, 2011)
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Mites Predatory Rearing House, Pomology citrus
plantation and zucchini plantations at the organic demo farm at Balili, La Trinidad,
Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011 to determine the population and species of
fruit fly and other insects trapped in the attractant; to identify families of other insects
trapped in the attractants and to determine the duration of consumption of the different
attractants.
The total population of fruit flies trapped in the attractant has a total of 23. The
table also shows that there were 17 fruit flies trapped on the fermented fruits (T1-T6)
while 6 were from fermented vegetables (T7-T10), though statistically not significant from
each other. There is a total of 15, 881 insects trapped in all of the attractants with a mean
of 5 293.67.
All the treatments were effective in trapping insects where in statistical analysis
revealed that all the means of the trapped insects were all not significantly different.
There were three species of fruit flies trapped which are the Bactrocera dorsalis,
Rhagoletis sp. and the Bactrocera cucurbitae with total trapped population of 23, where
17 females and 6 males.
The insects trapped in the attractants belong to 6 orders. These were order
Coleoptera which consists of 5 families Order Diptera 10 families, Order: Hemiptera 1
family, Order: Hymenoptera 4 families, Order: Lepidoptera 4 families, Order: Neuroptera
1 family, and Order: Thysanoptera 1 family.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
22
The duration of consumption of the attractant lasted for 10 days and was still
effective. The third day of collection yields the highest number of trapped insects. The
number of trapped insects decreases from days 4 to 10 relative to the advancing time of
assessment.
Conclusion
It was proven from the study that all treatments were effective in trapping fruit
flies with regards to its statistical analysis, but numerically T4 (mango) and T9 (bell
pepper) has the highest number of trapped fruit flies. Also the 300 ml trap was consumed
in 10 days.
Recommendation
Based on the results of the study, mango and bell pepper is therefore
recommended for fruit fly trap formultions. It is also recommended to refill the trap every
10 days.
A follow up study could be done by increasing the amount of the fermented plant
extract mixed with vinegar juice.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
23
LITERATURE CITED
BIRCH, M. C. and K. F. HAYES. 1982. Insect Pheromones. The Institute of Biology’s
StudiesIn Biology # 147. E Arnold, Ltd., London. Pp. 87-100
CAPINERA, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. United States of America:
Academic Press. Pp 237-238.
CLAUSEN, C.P., D.W. CLANSY, and Q. C. CHOCK. 1965. Biological Control of the
OrientalFruit Fly (Dacus dorsalis Hendel) and other Fruit Flies in Hawaii. United
States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, P 57.
DEKKER, L. and R. F. MESSING (n.d). Managing Fruit Flies on Farms in Hawaii.
Retrieved August 16, 2010 from http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/IP-
4.pdf
KUDAN, S. B. 2007. Monitoring of fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel) population in
LaTrinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, LaTrinidad, Benguet.
LIM, A. K. 2002. Natural Farming Technology Seminar. Tribal Mission Foundation
International Inc. Juan Luna Street, Davao City Pp. 2-3.
MAU, R F.L and J. L. MATIN. 2005. Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) / Oriental fruit fly.
RetrievedAugust 15, 2010 from http://www.extento.hawaii.Edu.
MCNEW, A. 2009. NaturalInsect Attractant: AHome Made Approach. Retrieved
September 5, 2010 from http://gomestic.com/gardening/natural-insect-attractant
a-homemade-approach/.
NEWELL, I.M. and F. H. HARAMOTO. 1968. Biotic Factors Influencing Populations of
Dacusdorsalis in Hawaii. Proc. Hawaiian Entomology Society 81-139
NIGG H.N,L. L. MALLORY, S. E. SIMPSON, S. B. CALLAHAM, J. P. TOTH, S.
FRASER,M. KLIM, S. NAGY, J. L. NATION and J. A. ATTAWAY. 2005.
Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspense Loew, attraction to host fruit and host
kairomones. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uv74474j2864p8w3.
PRASAD, J. 2007. Fermented Fruit Juice as Insect Attractant. United States of America:
Academic Press. P 45.
TEPARKUM, S. 1998. Pests of Mango. November 2005, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and StateUniversity. Arthropod Management in Fruit Crops. Retrieved August 14,
2010 from http://www.ento.vt.edu/Fruitfiles/mangoIPM/mangoIPM .HTM#
Oriental%20fruit
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
24
WEEMS, H.V., J.B. HEPPNER. 2004. Oriental Fruit Fly. Retrieved August 15, 2010
fromhttp://www.creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropical/oriental_fruit_fly.htm.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
25
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Total and mean of female fruit fly species
SPECIES REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Bactrocera dorsalis
1 6 3
10
3.33a
Rhagoletis sp.
1 0 2 3
3.33a
Bactrocera cucurbitae
1 1 1 3
1.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 2 10.889
5.444
2.23ns 5.14
10.92
Error 6
14.667
2.444
TOTAL 8
25.556
CV=87.95%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
26
Appendix Table 2. Total and mean of male fruit fly species
SPECIES REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Bactrocera dorsalis
0 3 1 4
1.33a
Rhagoletis sp.
1
0
0
1
1.00a
Bactrocera cucurbitae
0 2 0 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 2 1.556
0.778
0.58ns 5.14
10.92
Error 6
8.000
1.333
TOTAL 8
9.556
CV=148.46%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
27
Appendix Table 3. Mean of sexes of the fruit fly species
SPECIES
SEX
TOTAL MEAN
F M
Bactrocera dorsalis
11
4
15
5.00a
Rhagoletis sp.
4
1
5
1.67a
Bactrocera cucurbitae
2
1
3
1.00a
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
28
Appendix Table 4. Duration of consumption and total population of insects trapped
in the different treatments
NUMBER OF INSECTS TRAPPED
DAYS OF
COLLECTION T0 T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
1
0 358 259
280
216
225
317
288 208 323
238
2
0 297 194
176
243
246
236
263 236 475
239
3
0 420 234
207
228
229
137
269 316 383
190
4
0 385 162
153
176
144
183
208 221 352
228
5
0 338 139
139
94
170
89
123 187 209
187
6
0 253 135
136
89
118
57
135 102 156
107
7
0 137 125
124
97
113
43
55 108 131
106
8
0 113 77
87
25
47
49
53 86 141
105
9
0 132 39
58
28
36
30
48 57 142
43
10 0 58 20
24
11
13
14
31 37 64
36
TOTAL 0 2491 1417 1384 1204 1341 1155 1473 1558 2376 1479
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
29
Appendix Table 5. Mean of the total population of insects trapped in the different
Treatments
DAYS
NUMBER OF INSECTS TRAPPED
OF
COLL
ECTIO
T0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
N
1 0 119.3
86.33
93.33 72
75
105.6 96
69.33 107.6 79.3
3
7
7
3
2
0
99
64.67
58.67 81
82
78.67 87.67 78.67 158.3 79.6
3
7
3
0
140
78
69
76
76.33 45.67 89.67 105.3
127.6 63.3
3
7
3
4 0 128.3
54
51
58.67 48
61
69.33 73.66 117.3 76
3
3
5 0 112.6
46.33
46.33 31.33 56.67 29.67 41
62.33 69.67 62.3
7
3
6
0
84.33 45
45.33 29.67 39.33 19
45
34
52
35.6
7
7
0
45.67 41.67
41.33 32.33 37.67 14.33 18.33 36
43.67 35.3
3
8
0
37.67 25.67
29
8.33 15.67 16.33 17.67 28.67 47
35
9
0
44
13
19.33 9.33 12
12
16
19
47.33 14.3
3
10
0
19.33
6.67
8
3.67 4.33 4.33 10.33 12.33 21.33 12
TOTA 0 830.3
472.33 461.3
402.3 447 385 491 519.3
792 159.
L
3
3
3
3
67
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
30
Appendix Table 6. Population of Apidae trapped in the attractants
REPLICATION
TREATMENTS
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
T0 0
0
0 0
0b
T1 0
0
0 0
0 b
T2 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T3 0
0
0 0
0 b
T4 0
0
1 1
0.33a
T5 0
1
0 1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0 0
0b
T7 0
0
0 0
0b
T8 0
0
0 0
0b
T9 0
0
0 0
0b
T10 0 1 0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1.500 0.67
1.250ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2.667
0.133
TOTAL 29
4.167
CV=24.73%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
31
Appendix Table 7. Population of Braconidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
T0 0
0
0 0
0b
T1 1
9
1
11
3.67a
T2 1
11
2
14
4.67a
T3 2
9
2
14
4.33a
T4 0
27
3
30
10.00a
T5 10
10
1 21
7.00a
T6 1
10
1
12
4.00a
T7 6
6
2
14
4.67a
T8 3
6
4
13
4.33a
T9 3
7
2
12
4.00a
T10 6 6 8
20
6.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 106.67
11.852
0.332ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
714.00
35.700
TOTAL 29
820.67
CV=43.51%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
32
Appendix Table 8. Population of Calliphoridae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0 0 0 0 0b
T1 8
6
32
46
15.33a
T2 3
4
20
27
9.00a
T3 4
3
22
29
9.67a
T4 3
5
20
28
9.33a
T5 6
3
14
23
7.67a
T6 3
11
18
32
10.67a
T7 4
5
23
32
10.67a
T8 0
4
5 9
3.00a
T9 13
11
35
59
19.67a
T10 3 2
30
35
11.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 531.33
59.037
0.518ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2281.333
114.067
TOTAL 29
2812.67
CV=45.70%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
33
Appendix Table 9. Population of Chironomidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0b
T1 32
4 7 43
14.33a
T2 22
6
20
48
16.00a
T3 20
4
15
39
13.00a
T4 20
2
12
34
11.33a
T5 18
9
27
57
18.00a
T6 31
4
10
45
15.00a
T7 34
6
13
53
17.67a
T8 29
10
11
50
16.67a
T9 30
5 6 41
13.67a
T10 7 3 8
18
6.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 340.833
37.870
0.297ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2553.333
127.667
TOTAL 29
2894.167
CV=35.97%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
34
Appendix Table 10. Population of Chrysomelidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 2
0
0 2
0.67a
T2 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T3 1
0
1 2
0.67a
T4 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T5 1
0
1 2
0.67a
T6 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T7 3
2
0 5
1.67a
T8 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T9 3
0
1 4
1.33a
T10 0 0 1 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 6.667
0.741
0.926ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
16.000
0.800
TOTAL 29
22.667
CV=36.86%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
35
Appendix Table 11. Population of Cicadellidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T10 0 1 0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.00 0.33 1.00ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=13.05%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
36
Appendix Table 12. Population of Coccinelidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 2
0
0 2
0.67a
T2 2
1
0 3
1.00a
T3 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T5 0
2
0 2
0.67a
T6 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T7 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T9 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T10 0 0 0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.633
0.404
0.865ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
9.333
0.467
TOTAL 29
12.967
CV=34.81%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
37
Appendix Table 13. Population of Culicidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 2
0
0 2
0.67a
T2 2
1
0 3
1.00a
T3 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T5 0
2
0 2
0.67a
T6 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T7 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T9 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T10 0 0 0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.633
0.404
0.865ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
9.333
0.467
TOTAL 29
12.967
CV=34.81%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
38
Appendix Table 14. Population of Drosophilidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 104
1 261 153 1 518 506.00a
T2 42
346
16
404
134.00a
T3 137
218
75
430
143.33a
T4 40
203
9
252
84.00a
T5 76
290
15
381
127.00a
T6 44
141
34
219
73.00a
T7 164
173
43
380
126.67a
T8 235
391
41
667
222.33a
T9 463
618
32
1 113 371.00a
T10 122
342
30
494
164.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9
516514.533
57390.504
0.875ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
1312103.333
65605.167
TOTAL 29
1828617.867
CV=59.85%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
39
Appendix Table 15. Population of Formicidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
3
0
3
1.00a
T2 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
1
2
3
1.00a
T7 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T8 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 1
0
0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.633
0.404
0.712ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
11.333
0.567
TOTAL 29
14.967
CV=35.64%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
40
Appendix Table 16. Population of Hemerobiidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.300 0.33
1.000ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=13.05%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
41
Appendix Table 17. Population of Ichneumonidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1
0
0
1
1
0.33a
T2
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 3
0
0 3
1.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 2.833
0.315
0.859 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
7.333
0.367
TOTAL 29
10.167
CV=31.29%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
42
Appendix Table 18. Population of Micropezidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1
0
0
1
1
0.33a
T2
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.33a
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 1
1
0
2
0.67a
T10 0
2
0 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 2.167
0.241
1.204 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
4.000
0.20
TOTAL 29
6.167
CV=27.60%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
43
Appendix Table 19. Population of Muscidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLIATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 67
27
167
261
87.00a
T2 24
24
224
272
90.67a
T3 36
49
260
328
115.00a
T4 23
45
118
186
62.00a
T5 38
60
147
245
81.67a
T6 29
27
145
201
67.00a
T7 31
41
332
404
134.67a
T8 31
69
93
193
64.33a
T9 64
12
312
388
129.33a
T10 48
28
233
309
103.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9
18800.133
2088.904
0.184 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
226775.333
11338.767
TOTAL 29
245575.467
CV=48.41%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
44
Appendix Table 20. Population of Nitidulidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 8
62
8
78
26.00a
T2 10
61
7
78
26.00a
T3 16
74
5
95
31.67a
T4 4
35
0
39
13.00a
T5 4
43
1
48
16.00a
T6 2
26
10
38
12.67a
T7 14
63
11
88
29.33a
T8 4
51
2
57
19.33a
T9 16
67
5
88
29.33a
T10 8
63
16
87
29.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1442.133
160.237
0.202 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
15862.667
793.133
TOTAL 29
17.304
CV=57.93%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
45
Appendix Table 21. Population of Noctuidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 39
17
15
71
23.67a
T2 74
20
24
118
39.67a
T3 35
30
30
95
31.67a
T4 55
15
43
113
37.67a
T5 40
24
33
97
32.33a
T6 65
20
39
124
41.33a
T7 25
16
17
58
19.33a
T8 15
16
24
55
18.33a
T9 35
24
29
88
29.33a
T10 34
5
35
74
24.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1802.700
200.300
0.815 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
4912.667
245.633
TOTAL 29
6715.367
CV=25.02%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
46
Appendix Table 22. Population of Nymphalidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 1
0
1 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1.367
0.152
2.278 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
1.333
0.067
Total 29
2.700
CV=20.81%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
47
Appendix Table 23. Population of Plutellidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T9 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T10 1
0
1 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.800
0.089
0.667 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2.667
0.133
TOTAL 29
3.467
CV=23.06%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
48
Appendix Table 24. Population of Sesiidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T9 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.300 0.33
1.000 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=13.05%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
49
Appendix Table 25. Population of Scarabaeidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
7
2
9
3.00a
T2 0
2
1
3
1.00a
T3 0
7
2
9
3.00a
T4 0
8
1
9
3.00a
T5 0
6
6
12
4.00a
T6 0
17
1
18
6.00a
T7 0
5
0
5
1.67a
T8 0
6
1
7
2.33a
T9 0
11
0
11
3.67a
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 75.367
8.374
0.403 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
416.000
20.800
TOTAL 29
491.367
CV=65.91%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
50
Appendix Table 26. Population of Scatopsidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 102
345
70
517
172.33a
T2 42
86
132
260
86.67a
T3 29
100
158
287
95.67a
T4 73
214
43
330
110.00a
T5 103
190
120
413
137.67a
T6 79
121
109
309
103.00a
T7 52
111
90
253
84.33a
T8 75
216
84
375
125.00a
T9 186
101
181
468
156.00a
T10 53
75
164
292
97.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9
24442.800
2715.867
0.516 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
105204.000
5260.200
TOTAL 29
129646.800
CV=27.57%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
51
Appendix Table 27. Population of Staphylinidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T3 0
1
1
2
0.67a
T4 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
2
2
0.67a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
1
0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 2.033
0.226
0.847 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
5.333
0.267
TOTAL 29
7.367
CV=29.47%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
52
Appendix Table 28. Population of Sepsidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS TREATMENTS TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
79
79
26.33
T2 0
0
29
29
9.67a
T3 0
0
32
32
10.67a
T4 1
0
18
19
6.33a
T5 0
1
16
17
5.67a
T6 0
0
9
9
3.00a
T7 0
0
62
62
20.67a
T8 2
0
18
20
6.67a
T9 2
1
25
28
9.33a
T10 0
0
17
17
5.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1473.200
163.689
0.358 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
9142.000
457.100
TOTAL 29
10615.200
CV=100.27%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
53
Appendix Table 29. Population of Tabanidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.300 0.33
1.000 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=1.000%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
54
Appendix Table 30. Population of Tephtritidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T2 0
2
0
2
0.67a
T3 1
1
0
2
0.67a
T4 1
4
0
5
1.67a
T5 1
1
1
0
1.00a
T6 0
1
3
4
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T9 0
1
4
5
1.67a
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 10.700
1.189
0.892 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
26.667
1.333
TOTAL 29
37.367
CV=41.56%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
55
Appendix Table 31. Population of Tipulidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
2
0.67a
T2 1
0
1
2
0.67a
T3 2
0
2
4
1.33a
T4 4
0
0
4
1.33a
T5 1
0
1
2
0.67a
T6 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T7 1
1
5
7
0.00b
T8 3
0
2
5
0.33a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 3
0
0 3
1.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 12.667
1.407
0.716 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
39.333
1.967
TOTAL 29
52.000
CV=44.08%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
56
Appendix Table 32. Population of Thripidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
2
0
2
0.67a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1.200
0.133
1.000 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2.667
0.133
TOTAL 29
3.867
CV=21.67%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
BASINGAN, EIRA A. Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and
Vegetables as Fruit Fly Attractant. Benguet State University. La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Gemma S. Das-ilen, MSc.,
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Mites Predatory Rearing House, Pomology
citrus plantation and zucchini plantations at the organic demo farm at Balili, La
Trinidad, Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011 to determine the population and
species of fruit fly trapped in the attractant; to identify families of other insects
trapped in the attractants and to determine the duration of consumption of the
different attractants.
A total of 23 fruit flies were attracted to the trap. All treatments used in the
study were found effective in attracting fruit flies. Treatments 4 (mango) and 9 (bell
pepper) has the highest trapped fruit fly. There was a total population of 15, 881
insects trapped in all of the attractants with a mean of 5, 293.67.
There were three species of fruit flies trapped in the attractant which are the
Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel, Rhagoletis sp. and the Bactrocera cucurbitae with total
trapped population of 23, where 17 of which are females and 6 are males.
Other insects trapped belong to 6 orders and 26 families. It was proven from
the study that all treatments were effective in trapping fruit flies.
The attractant is effective however it was consumed in 10 days.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….. i
Abstract ……..…………………………………………………………………..
i
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………..
ii
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE …………………………………………………...
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS ………………………………………………..
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ………………………………………………...
10
Population of Trapped Fruit fly …………………………….……….....
10
Species of Fruit Fly Trapped……………………………………………
10
Families of Insects Trapped in the Attractant ………..………………..
11
Duration of Consumption of the Attractants …………………………...
11
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ………………….
21
Summary ………………………………………………………………... 21
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………
22
Recommendation ……………………………………………………….. 22
LITERATURE CITED ………………………………………………………….
23
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………... 25
1
INTRODUCTION
Fruit
fly
(Bactrocera spp.) is one among the many destructive insect pests
damaging fruits in the Philippines. They are small, yellowish flies that are commonly
attracted to fermenting fruit of all kinds. The adult fruit fly which is noticeably larger
than a housefly, is very variable but there are prominent yellow and dark brown to black
markings on the thorax. Among the Tephtritidae, the female fruit fly inserts its needle-
like ovipositor and lays its eggs into the fruit. The maggots that hatch out of the eggs feed
and destroy the tissue in the fruit. Apparently, ripe fruits are preferred for oviposition, but
immature ones may also be attacked (Mau and Matin, 2005). Principal fruit hosts are
avocado, apple, mango, peach, pear, citrus, coffee, and especially guava. Among
vegetables are pepper, tomato, and watermelon (Capinera, 2001).
In La Trinidad, fruit fly damages numerous fruits and vegetables (Kudan, 2007).
Economic effects of pest species include not only direct loss of yield and increased
control costs, but also the loss of export markets and/or the cost of constructing and
maintaining fruit treatment and eradication facilities. The increase of productivity has
always been the primary concern in every agricultural and rural developmental efforts.
Various methods and technology systems has been employed and looked into as possible
solutions to ensure high yields. Most of them come at a certain price. Because of these,
experiment on the different fermented locally available and cheap fruits and vegetables
should be conducted since pesticides are expensive.
The study was conducted to determine the population and species of fruit fly and
other insects trapped in the attractant; to identify families of other insects trapped in the
attractants and to determine the duration of consumption of the different attractants.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
2
The study was conducted at the Mites Predator Rearing House, Pomology Citrus
Plantation and zucchini plantations at the organic demo farm at Balili, La Trinidad,
Benguet. The study was conducted from January 2011 to March 2011.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Kinds of Attractants
Chemical Attractant. Pheromones are semio-chemicals that are produced and
received by members of the same species, this has a great influence on the behavior and
biological processes of insects. Pheromones are produced synthetically and are used in
different ways. It can be used as a lure in traps used to monitor pest populations.
Pheromones also disrupt mating (Birch and Hayes, 1982).
Plant-based Attractant. These are attractants which generally introduced to plants.
These hybrid plants can attract and kill pest that are attacking them. One example is the
attractin, a patented environmentally friendly, non-toxic, plant-based attractant which
effectively attracts fruit flies including olive and orange fruit fly pest, attractin does not
affect honeybees. Attractin was developed by Natural-Agro in 2001 (Birch and Hayes,
1982).
Natural Insect Attractants. Nigg et al. (2005) mentioned that extracts of cattle
guava was equal in attractiveness to males and females especially with Carribean fruit
fly, Anastrepha suspense Loew. It was also suggested that host chemicals serve as
attractants and the female and male specific attractant and traps could be developed from
host kairomone data.
In 2007, Prasad stated that traps baited with some attractive material namely
fermented sugar, molasses and poisoned with chemicals have also been found effective in
capturing fruit fly adults. In Hawaii, Dekker and Messing (n.d) reported that homemade
mixes of vinegar and water and yeast have attracted both males and females of Dipteran
species.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
4
Natural insect attractant (NIA) is a mixture of mascuvado sugar and vinegar (1K
sugar, 1li vinegar, and 3li water). It can be placed inside a recycled plastic container,
improvised for the purpose, and place in strategic position advantageous to catch flies,
insects, etc. The natural insect attractant is also excellent in household use; it can
practically be placed near open spout, open garbage bin, or a place you knew there is
possible presence of insects (McNew, 2009).
Characteristics of B. dorsalis
The adult is a clear winged fly with a wingspan of 5.3-7.3 mm and a body length
of 6.0-8.0 millimeter (Teparkum, 1998 and Weems and Heppner 2004 ). Viewed from
above, the overall color of the abdomen is basically light brown with dark brown
transverse bands and the thorax dark brown with conspicuous markings of yellow or
occasionally white. The white spindled-shaped eggs are 1.2 mm in length and 0.2 mm in
width. The young maggots are white and when fully-grown are yellowish and about 10.0
mm in length.
The color of the fly is very variable, but there are prominent yellow and dark
brown to black markings on the thorax. Generally, the abdomen has two horizontal black
stripes and a longitudinal median stripe extending from the base of the third segment to
the apex of the abdomen. These markings may form a T-shaped pattern, but the pattern
varies considerably. The ovipositor is very slender and sharply pointed (Weems and
Heppner, 2004).
Host Plants of B. dorsalis
B. dorsalis occurs on a wide range of fruit crops, apples, bananas, guavas,
mangoes, oranges, pawpaws, peaches, plums, and tomatoes (Clausen et al., 1965).
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
5
Likewise,
the
Bactrocera dorsalis attacks over 300 cultivated and wild fruits
including, tomato, banana (Clausen et al., 1965 and Newell and Haramoto, 1968), bitter
melon, citrus, coffee, guava, macadamia, mango, papaya, passion fruit, peppers, avocado,
persimmon, and Annona (cherimoya, atemoya, sugar apple). This pest will apparently
breed in all fleshly fruits. It does not attack cucurbit crops such as cucumber and squash
(Newell and Haramoto, 1968).
The
B. dorsalis has been recorded from more than 150 kinds of fruit and
vegetables, including citrus, guava, mango, papaya, avocado, banana (Clausen et al.,
1965 and Newell and Haramoto, 1968), loquat, tomato, surinam cherry, rose-apple,
passion fruit persimmon, pineapple, peach, pear, apricot, fig, and coffee. Avocado, and
mango, are the most commonly attacked (Weems and Hepner, 2004).
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ)
Ripe citrus, guava (native variety), strawberry, mango, papaya, and banana, were
fermented as fruit attractants while chayote, tomato, bell pepper, and cucumber were
fermented as vegetable attractants. Two kilos of each fruit and vegetables were used.
These fruits and vegetables were chopped using a knife and chopping board.
There were ten plastic pail containers with 5 liter capacity used. Each container was
assigned to each of the chopped fruits and vegetables. Likewise, two kilograms of
chopped banana trunk (cardava variety) and one kilo of muscovado sugar was added in
each container and was mixed thoroughly. Hence, each container contains two kilograms
of chopped fruit or vegetable plus one kilogram of muscovado and two kilograms of
chopped banana trunk. Each of the containers was covered with a clean manila paper, and
tied with a rubber band. It was stored in a cool dry place for 7 days for fermentation.
After fermentation, the extract was collected using the plastic pail container and a clean
cloth that served as a strainer. Then it was squeezed to further collect the liquid extracts
that the latter absorbed.
Vinegar Juice (VJ)
Vinegar juice is the mixture of five gallons of crude vinegar mixed with 2 ½
grounded muscovado sugar. The crude vinegar is used to enhance the aroma of the
attractant and was believed to drive away and lessen beneficial insects that will be
trapped. The five gallons of crude vinegar and 2 ½ grounded muscovado sugar was
placed in a cooking pot and was heated until it boils. When the muscovado sugar was
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
7
totally diluted and mixed, it was set aside for cooling and added to the fruit and vegetable
extract during trapping.
The Trap
The ratio of 1:1 (150 ml fruit or vegetable extracts (FPJ) + 150 ml crude vinegar
with muscovado sugar (VJ)) was used. These concentrations were poured on the trap.
Thirty-three 1.5 coke containers was used as trapping material. Each of the containers
was prepared by making two opening in each side leaving 5.08 cm from the bottom. The
cut side of the coke container served as entrance of the insect. A styrofoam plate
measuring 22.86 cm diameter was placed on top of the trap to protect the FPJ and VJ
dilution from rain water when it rains. A string was tied to the tip of the container, and
was hanged using sticks, 15.24 cm above the ground on strawberry and zucchini plants
and at the middle of the fruits on citrus trees. The trap was replicated three times and was
distributed randomly. One hundred fifty milliliters of the treatments, which are citrus,
guava, strawberry, mango, papaya, banana, chayote, tomato, bell pepper and cucumber
extract was added with 150 ml vinegar juice. Complete Randomized Design (CRD)
single factorial was used in the statistical analysis of the treatments. Plain water was
introduced as untreated. The treatments were as follows:
T0 – 300 ml water
T1 – 150 ml citrus extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T2 – 150 ml guava extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T3 – 150 ml strawberry extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T4 – 150 ml mango extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T5 – 150 ml papaya extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
8
T6 – 150 ml banana extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T7 – 150 ml chayote extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T8 – 150 ml tomato extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T9 – 150 ml bell pepper extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
T10 – 150 ml cucumber extract + 150 ml vinegar juice
Population of Fruit fly and other Insects Trapped in the Attractant
The population of fruit fly and other insects attracted to the trap was recorded.
Collection of trapped insects was done everyday using a screen scoop for the trapped
insects to be fresh, body parts intact and visible for easier identification.
Duration of Consumption of the Attractant
The duration of the trap was gathered by counting the number of days from set up
until the trap is consumed. The duration is commonly affected by evaporation,
temperature and weather.
Identification of the Trapped Insects
The collected insects were spread on a bond paper to dry, to be sorted and were
identified using microscope (if necessary) and were documented using a digital camera.
The insects were identified from order to family using entomology books and internet.
Fruit fly species is identified using the thorax as a basis.
Data Gathered
1.
Number and species of fruit fly trapped. Fruit flies trapped were identified
into species.
2. Population of trapped insects. This refers to the number of fruit fly and
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
9
other insects trapped in the attractant.
3. Duration of the attractant. This refers to how long the trap is effective in
trapping insects.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Population of Trapped Fruit fly
The mean population of the trapped fruit fly in each treatment is presented in
Table 1. The statistical analysis shows that the population of fruit flies trapped on the
different attractants is not significantly different. However, numerically the population of
trapped fruit flies was observed highest on treatments 4 (mango) fermented fruit and
treatment 9 (bell pepper) fermented vegetable followed by treatments 6, 5, 3 and 2, 8 and
1, 10 and 7 and water.
As observed, there were no fruit flies trapped on water indicating that the
formulated attractants used were effective in attracting fruit flies.
The Table 1. also shows that there were 17 fruit flies trapped on the fermented
fruits (T1-T6) while 6 were from fermented vegetables (T7-T10), though statistically not
significant from each other.
The total number of fruit flies trapped on the attractants also indicates that the
fruit flies trapped were attracted on the aroma of the fermented fruit on to which fruits are
suitable for egg deposition.
Species of Fruit fly Trapped
The species of fruit flies trapped in the attractant is shown in Table 2. The
statistical analysis shows that the number of fruit flies on the different attractants is not
significantly different. However, numerically the population of trapped female fruit flies
was observed highest on T4 (mango) as corroborated by Weems and Hepner, 2004 that
mangoes are the most commonly attacked by fruit flies. This was followed by T6
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
11
(banana) and T9 (bell pepper) which has a total of 3 fruit flies, T2 (guava) and T3
(strawberry) which is 2 and T1 (citrus) and T8 (tomato) with 1 population respectively.
There were three species of fruit flies trapped on the different attractants which
are the Bactrocera dorsalis (Figure 1), Rhagoletis sp. (Figure 2) and the Bactrocera
cucurbitae (Figure 3).
Table 1. The mean population of trapped fruit flies on the different attractants
TREATMENTS TOTAL
MEAN
T0 (water)
0
0.00b
T1 (citrus)
1
0.33a
T2 (guava)
2
0.67a
T3 (strawberry)
2
0.67a
T4 (mango)
5
1.67a
T5 (papaya)
3
1.00a
T6 (banana)
4
1.33a
SUB TOTAL
17
5.67a
T7 (chayote)
0
0.00b
T8 (tomato)
1
0.33a
T9 (bell pepper)
5
1.67a
T10 (cucumber)
0
0.00b
SUB TOTAL
6
2.00a
TOTAL 23
ns=CV=41.56%
Means with the same letter is not significantly different at 5% level of significance
(DMRT)
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
12
Table 2. The mean of the different sexes of fruit fly species trapped on the different
treatments
TREATMENT NUMBER
OF
SEX
TOTAL MEAN
FRUIT FLY
F M
T0 (water)
0
0 0 0 0.00b
T1 (citrus)
1
1 0 1 0.33a
T2 (guava)
2
2 0 2 0.67a
T3 (strawberry)
2
2 0 3 0.67a
T4 (mango)
5
4 1 5 1.67a
T5 (papaya)
3
2 1 3 1.00a
T6 (banana)
4
3 1 4 1.33a
T7 (chayote)
0
0 0 0 0.00b
T8 (tomato)
1
0 1 1 0.33a
T9 (bell pepper)
3
3 2 3 0.67a
T10 (cucumber)
0
0 0 0 0.00b
Figure 1. Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel species,
Adult male (left) and female (right) (10x)
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
13
Figure 2. Adult female Rhagoletis sp. (10x) Figure 3. Adult male Bactrocera
cucurbitae species (10x)
Families of Insects Trapped in the Attractant
The mean population of trapped insects on the different treatments shows on
Table 3. The statistical analysis shows that the number of insects trapped on the different
attractants is not significantly different. However, numerically among the treatments,
treatment 1, which is citrus extract, gains the highest trapped population of trapped
insects with a mean of 830.33. This is followed by T9 (bell pepper), T8 (tomato), T10
(cucumber), T7 (chayote), T2 (guava), T3 (strawberry), T5 (papaya), T4 (mango) and
lastly, T6 (banana).
It was apparently shown in the table that all the treatments were effective in
trapping insects where in it shows that all are numerically significant but statistical
analysis revealed that all the means of the trapped insects were all not significantly
different.
The insects trapped in the attractants belonged to 6 orders. These were order
Coleoptera which consists of family: Chrysomelidae (Figures 4-6), Coccinelidae (Figures
7-8), Nitidulidae (Figure 9), Scarabaeidae (Figure 10) and Staphylinidae (Figure 11).
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
14
Order Diptera, family Calliphoridae (Figure 12), Chironomidae (Figure 13), Culicidae
(Figure 14), Drosophilidae (Figure 15), Muscidae (Figure 16), Scatopsidae (Figure 17),
Sepsidae (Figure 18), Tabanidae (Figure 19), Tipulidae (Figure 20), and Micropezidae
(Figure 21). Order: Hemiptera family Cicadellidae (Figure 22). Order: Hymenoptera
Family Apidae (Figure 23), Braconidae (Figure 24), Formicidae (Figure 25), and
Ichnuemonidae (Figure 26). Order: Lepidoptera family Noctuidae (Figure 27),
Nymphalidae (Figure 28), Plutellidae (Figure 29) and Sesiidae (Figure 30). Order:
Neuroptera family Hemerobiidae (Figure 31) and Order: Thysanoptera family Thripidae
(Figure 32).
Table 3. The mean population of trapped insects on the different treatments
TREATMENT TOTAL
MEAN
T0 (water)
0
0.00b
T1 (citrus)
2 941
830.33a
T2 (guava)
1 417
472.33a
T3 (strawberry)
1 384
461.33a
T4 (mango)
1 207
402.33a
T5 (papaya)
1 341
447a
T6 (banana)
1 155
385a
T7 (chayote)
1 473
491a
T8 (tomato)
1 558
519.33a
T9 (bell pepper)
2 376
792a
T10 (cucumber)
1 479
493a
SUB TOTAL
15 881
5 293.67a
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
15
Figure 4. Adult Chrysomelid Beetle
Figure 5. Adult Flea Beetle
Family: Chrysomelidae Family: Chrysomelidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Figure 6. Adult Spotted Tortoise Beetle Figure 7. Adult Lady Bird Beetle
Family: Chrysomelidae Family: Coccinelidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Figure 8. Adult Lady Bird Beetle Figure 9. Adult Sap Beetle
Family: Coccinelidae Family: Nitidulidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
16
Figure 10. Adult June Beetle Figure 11. Adult Rove Beetle
Family: Scarabaeidae Family: Staphylinidae
Order: Coleoptera Order: Coleoptera
Figure 12. Adult Blowfly Figure 13. Adult Midge
Family: Calliphoridae Family: Chironomidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Figure 14. Adult Mosquito fly Figure 15. Vinegar Fly
Family: Culicidae Family: Drosophilidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
17
Figure 16. Adult House Fly Figure 17. Adult Black Scavenger Fly
Family: Muscidae Family: Scatopsidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Figure 18. Adult Ant fly Figure 19. Adult Horse fly
Family: Sepsidae Family: Tabanidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Figure 20. Adult Crane Fly Figure 21. Adult Stilt Leg
Family: Tipulidae Family: Micropezidae
Order: Diptera Order: Diptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
18
Figure 22. Adult Plant Hopper Figure 23. Adult Honey Bee
Family: Cicadellidae Family: Apidae
Order: Hemiptera Order: Hymenoptera
Figure 24. Adult Braconid Wasp Figure 25. Adult Ant
Family: Braconidae Family: Formicidae
Order: Hymenoptera Order: Hymenoptera
Figure 26. Adult Diadegma Figure 27. Adult Cutworm Moth
Family: Ichneumonidae Family: Noctuidae
Order: Hymenoptera Order: Lepidoptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
19
Figure 28. Adult Nymphalid Butterfly Figure 29. Adult Diamond Back Moth
Family: Nymphalidae Family: Plutellidae
Order: Lepidoptera Order: Lepidoptera
Figure 30. Adult Clear-winged Moth Figure 31. Adult Brown Lacewing
Family: Sesiidae Family: Hemerobiidae
Order: Lepidoptera Order: Neuroptera
Figure 32. Adult Thrips
Family: Thripidae
Order: Thysanoptera
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
20
Duration of Consumption of the Attractants
The duration of efficacy of the attractants is indicated in Figure 33. The graph
shows that regardless of treatment in the attractants, there was a decreasing number of
insects trapped in day 2 and increased in day 3 and gradually decreasing from days 4 to
10, except treatment 9 which increased in day 1 while gradually decreasing from days 2
to 10.
Nevertheless, it is apparent as presented in the graph that the attractants are
decreasing in effectiveness relative to the advancement of time which started from day 3
of the treatments while day 2 in treatment 9. The graph shows that the different
treatments (T1-T10) are effective in trapping insects however the trap was consumed in 10
days.
180
160
T0 (Water)
140
T1 (Citrus)
T2 (Guava)
120
T3 (Strawberry)
100
T4 (Mango)
T5 (Papaya)
80
T6 (Banana)
60
T7 (Chayote)
T8 (Tomato)
40
T9 (Bell Pepper)
T10 (Cucumber)
20
0
Day1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 8 Day 9 Day 10
Figure 33. The duration (days) of the attractants set on the zucchini, citrus and
strawberry plants (Jan. 28, 2011-March 2, 2011)
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Mites Predatory Rearing House, Pomology citrus
plantation and zucchini plantations at the organic demo farm at Balili, La Trinidad,
Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011 to determine the population and species of
fruit fly and other insects trapped in the attractant; to identify families of other insects
trapped in the attractants and to determine the duration of consumption of the different
attractants.
The total population of fruit flies trapped in the attractant has a total of 23. The
table also shows that there were 17 fruit flies trapped on the fermented fruits (T1-T6)
while 6 were from fermented vegetables (T7-T10), though statistically not significant from
each other. There is a total of 15, 881 insects trapped in all of the attractants with a mean
of 5 293.67.
All the treatments were effective in trapping insects where in statistical analysis
revealed that all the means of the trapped insects were all not significantly different.
There were three species of fruit flies trapped which are the Bactrocera dorsalis,
Rhagoletis sp. and the Bactrocera cucurbitae with total trapped population of 23, where
17 females and 6 males.
The insects trapped in the attractants belong to 6 orders. These were order
Coleoptera which consists of 5 families Order Diptera 10 families, Order: Hemiptera 1
family, Order: Hymenoptera 4 families, Order: Lepidoptera 4 families, Order: Neuroptera
1 family, and Order: Thysanoptera 1 family.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
22
The duration of consumption of the attractant lasted for 10 days and was still
effective. The third day of collection yields the highest number of trapped insects. The
number of trapped insects decreases from days 4 to 10 relative to the advancing time of
assessment.
Conclusion
It was proven from the study that all treatments were effective in trapping fruit
flies with regards to its statistical analysis, but numerically T4 (mango) and T9 (bell
pepper) has the highest number of trapped fruit flies. Also the 300 ml trap was consumed
in 10 days.
Recommendation
Based on the results of the study, mango and bell pepper is therefore
recommended for fruit fly trap formultions. It is also recommended to refill the trap every
10 days.
A follow up study could be done by increasing the amount of the fermented plant
extract mixed with vinegar juice.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
23
LITERATURE CITED
BIRCH, M. C. and K. F. HAYES. 1982. Insect Pheromones. The Institute of Biology’s
StudiesIn Biology # 147. E Arnold, Ltd., London. Pp. 87-100
CAPINERA, J. L. 2001. Handbook of Vegetable Pests. United States of America:
Academic Press. Pp 237-238.
CLAUSEN, C.P., D.W. CLANSY, and Q. C. CHOCK. 1965. Biological Control of the
OrientalFruit Fly (Dacus dorsalis Hendel) and other Fruit Flies in Hawaii. United
States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin, P 57.
DEKKER, L. and R. F. MESSING (n.d). Managing Fruit Flies on Farms in Hawaii.
Retrieved August 16, 2010 from http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/IP-
4.pdf
KUDAN, S. B. 2007. Monitoring of fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel) population in
LaTrinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, LaTrinidad, Benguet.
LIM, A. K. 2002. Natural Farming Technology Seminar. Tribal Mission Foundation
International Inc. Juan Luna Street, Davao City Pp. 2-3.
MAU, R F.L and J. L. MATIN. 2005. Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) / Oriental fruit fly.
RetrievedAugust 15, 2010 from http://www.extento.hawaii.Edu.
MCNEW, A. 2009. NaturalInsect Attractant: AHome Made Approach. Retrieved
September 5, 2010 from http://gomestic.com/gardening/natural-insect-attractant
a-homemade-approach/.
NEWELL, I.M. and F. H. HARAMOTO. 1968. Biotic Factors Influencing Populations of
Dacusdorsalis in Hawaii. Proc. Hawaiian Entomology Society 81-139
NIGG H.N,L. L. MALLORY, S. E. SIMPSON, S. B. CALLAHAM, J. P. TOTH, S.
FRASER,M. KLIM, S. NAGY, J. L. NATION and J. A. ATTAWAY. 2005.
Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspense Loew, attraction to host fruit and host
kairomones. Retrieved July 29, 2010 from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uv74474j2864p8w3.
PRASAD, J. 2007. Fermented Fruit Juice as Insect Attractant. United States of America:
Academic Press. P 45.
TEPARKUM, S. 1998. Pests of Mango. November 2005, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and StateUniversity. Arthropod Management in Fruit Crops. Retrieved August 14,
2010 from http://www.ento.vt.edu/Fruitfiles/mangoIPM/mangoIPM .HTM#
Oriental%20fruit
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
24
WEEMS, H.V., J.B. HEPPNER. 2004. Oriental Fruit Fly. Retrieved August 15, 2010
fromhttp://www.creatures.ifas.ufl.edu/fruit/tropical/oriental_fruit_fly.htm.
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
25
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Total and mean of female fruit fly species
SPECIES REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Bactrocera dorsalis
1 6 3
10
3.33a
Rhagoletis sp.
1 0 2 3
3.33a
Bactrocera cucurbitae
1 1 1 3
1.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 2 10.889
5.444
2.23ns 5.14
10.92
Error 6
14.667
2.444
TOTAL 8
25.556
CV=87.95%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
26
Appendix Table 2. Total and mean of male fruit fly species
SPECIES REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
Bactrocera dorsalis
0 3 1 4
1.33a
Rhagoletis sp.
1
0
0
1
1.00a
Bactrocera cucurbitae
0 2 0 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 2 1.556
0.778
0.58ns 5.14
10.92
Error 6
8.000
1.333
TOTAL 8
9.556
CV=148.46%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
27
Appendix Table 3. Mean of sexes of the fruit fly species
SPECIES
SEX
TOTAL MEAN
F M
Bactrocera dorsalis
11
4
15
5.00a
Rhagoletis sp.
4
1
5
1.67a
Bactrocera cucurbitae
2
1
3
1.00a
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
28
Appendix Table 4. Duration of consumption and total population of insects trapped
in the different treatments
NUMBER OF INSECTS TRAPPED
DAYS OF
COLLECTION T0 T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
1
0 358 259
280
216
225
317
288 208 323
238
2
0 297 194
176
243
246
236
263 236 475
239
3
0 420 234
207
228
229
137
269 316 383
190
4
0 385 162
153
176
144
183
208 221 352
228
5
0 338 139
139
94
170
89
123 187 209
187
6
0 253 135
136
89
118
57
135 102 156
107
7
0 137 125
124
97
113
43
55 108 131
106
8
0 113 77
87
25
47
49
53 86 141
105
9
0 132 39
58
28
36
30
48 57 142
43
10 0 58 20
24
11
13
14
31 37 64
36
TOTAL 0 2491 1417 1384 1204 1341 1155 1473 1558 2376 1479
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
29
Appendix Table 5. Mean of the total population of insects trapped in the different
Treatments
DAYS
NUMBER OF INSECTS TRAPPED
OF
COLL
ECTIO
T0
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
T8
T9
T10
N
1 0 119.3
86.33
93.33 72
75
105.6 96
69.33 107.6 79.3
3
7
7
3
2
0
99
64.67
58.67 81
82
78.67 87.67 78.67 158.3 79.6
3
7
3
0
140
78
69
76
76.33 45.67 89.67 105.3
127.6 63.3
3
7
3
4 0 128.3
54
51
58.67 48
61
69.33 73.66 117.3 76
3
3
5 0 112.6
46.33
46.33 31.33 56.67 29.67 41
62.33 69.67 62.3
7
3
6
0
84.33 45
45.33 29.67 39.33 19
45
34
52
35.6
7
7
0
45.67 41.67
41.33 32.33 37.67 14.33 18.33 36
43.67 35.3
3
8
0
37.67 25.67
29
8.33 15.67 16.33 17.67 28.67 47
35
9
0
44
13
19.33 9.33 12
12
16
19
47.33 14.3
3
10
0
19.33
6.67
8
3.67 4.33 4.33 10.33 12.33 21.33 12
TOTA 0 830.3
472.33 461.3
402.3 447 385 491 519.3
792 159.
L
3
3
3
3
67
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
30
Appendix Table 6. Population of Apidae trapped in the attractants
REPLICATION
TREATMENTS
I II
TOTAL
III
MEAN
T0 0
0
0 0
0b
T1 0
0
0 0
0 b
T2 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T3 0
0
0 0
0 b
T4 0
0
1 1
0.33a
T5 0
1
0 1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0 0
0b
T7 0
0
0 0
0b
T8 0
0
0 0
0b
T9 0
0
0 0
0b
T10 0 1 0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1.500 0.67
1.250ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2.667
0.133
TOTAL 29
4.167
CV=24.73%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
31
Appendix Table 7. Population of Braconidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
T0 0
0
0 0
0b
T1 1
9
1
11
3.67a
T2 1
11
2
14
4.67a
T3 2
9
2
14
4.33a
T4 0
27
3
30
10.00a
T5 10
10
1 21
7.00a
T6 1
10
1
12
4.00a
T7 6
6
2
14
4.67a
T8 3
6
4
13
4.33a
T9 3
7
2
12
4.00a
T10 6 6 8
20
6.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 106.67
11.852
0.332ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
714.00
35.700
TOTAL 29
820.67
CV=43.51%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
32
Appendix Table 8. Population of Calliphoridae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0 0 0 0 0b
T1 8
6
32
46
15.33a
T2 3
4
20
27
9.00a
T3 4
3
22
29
9.67a
T4 3
5
20
28
9.33a
T5 6
3
14
23
7.67a
T6 3
11
18
32
10.67a
T7 4
5
23
32
10.67a
T8 0
4
5 9
3.00a
T9 13
11
35
59
19.67a
T10 3 2
30
35
11.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 531.33
59.037
0.518ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2281.333
114.067
TOTAL 29
2812.67
CV=45.70%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
33
Appendix Table 9. Population of Chironomidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0b
T1 32
4 7 43
14.33a
T2 22
6
20
48
16.00a
T3 20
4
15
39
13.00a
T4 20
2
12
34
11.33a
T5 18
9
27
57
18.00a
T6 31
4
10
45
15.00a
T7 34
6
13
53
17.67a
T8 29
10
11
50
16.67a
T9 30
5 6 41
13.67a
T10 7 3 8
18
6.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 340.833
37.870
0.297ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2553.333
127.667
TOTAL 29
2894.167
CV=35.97%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
34
Appendix Table 10. Population of Chrysomelidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 2
0
0 2
0.67a
T2 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T3 1
0
1 2
0.67a
T4 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T5 1
0
1 2
0.67a
T6 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T7 3
2
0 5
1.67a
T8 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T9 3
0
1 4
1.33a
T10 0 0 1 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 6.667
0.741
0.926ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
16.000
0.800
TOTAL 29
22.667
CV=36.86%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
35
Appendix Table 11. Population of Cicadellidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T10 0 1 0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.00 0.33 1.00ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=13.05%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
36
Appendix Table 12. Population of Coccinelidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 2
0
0 2
0.67a
T2 2
1
0 3
1.00a
T3 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T5 0
2
0 2
0.67a
T6 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T7 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T9 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T10 0 0 0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.633
0.404
0.865ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
9.333
0.467
TOTAL 29
12.967
CV=34.81%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
37
Appendix Table 13. Population of Culicidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 2
0
0 2
0.67a
T2 2
1
0 3
1.00a
T3 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T5 0
2
0 2
0.67a
T6 1
1
0 2
0.67a
T7 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T9 1
0
0 1
0.33a
T10 0 0 0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.633
0.404
0.865ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
9.333
0.467
TOTAL 29
12.967
CV=34.81%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
38
Appendix Table 14. Population of Drosophilidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0 0
0.00b
T1 104
1 261 153 1 518 506.00a
T2 42
346
16
404
134.00a
T3 137
218
75
430
143.33a
T4 40
203
9
252
84.00a
T5 76
290
15
381
127.00a
T6 44
141
34
219
73.00a
T7 164
173
43
380
126.67a
T8 235
391
41
667
222.33a
T9 463
618
32
1 113 371.00a
T10 122
342
30
494
164.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9
516514.533
57390.504
0.875ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
1312103.333
65605.167
TOTAL 29
1828617.867
CV=59.85%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
39
Appendix Table 15. Population of Formicidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
3
0
3
1.00a
T2 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
1
2
3
1.00a
T7 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T8 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 1
0
0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 3.633
0.404
0.712ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
11.333
0.567
TOTAL 29
14.967
CV=35.64%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
40
Appendix Table 16. Population of Hemerobiidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.300 0.33
1.000ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=13.05%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
41
Appendix Table 17. Population of Ichneumonidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1
0
0
1
1
0.33a
T2
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 3
0
0 3
1.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 2.833
0.315
0.859 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
7.333
0.367
TOTAL 29
10.167
CV=31.29%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
42
Appendix Table 18. Population of Micropezidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1
0
0
1
1
0.33a
T2
0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.33a
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 1
1
0
2
0.67a
T10 0
2
0 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 2.167
0.241
1.204 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
4.000
0.20
TOTAL 29
6.167
CV=27.60%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
43
Appendix Table 19. Population of Muscidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLIATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 67
27
167
261
87.00a
T2 24
24
224
272
90.67a
T3 36
49
260
328
115.00a
T4 23
45
118
186
62.00a
T5 38
60
147
245
81.67a
T6 29
27
145
201
67.00a
T7 31
41
332
404
134.67a
T8 31
69
93
193
64.33a
T9 64
12
312
388
129.33a
T10 48
28
233
309
103.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9
18800.133
2088.904
0.184 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
226775.333
11338.767
TOTAL 29
245575.467
CV=48.41%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
44
Appendix Table 20. Population of Nitidulidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 8
62
8
78
26.00a
T2 10
61
7
78
26.00a
T3 16
74
5
95
31.67a
T4 4
35
0
39
13.00a
T5 4
43
1
48
16.00a
T6 2
26
10
38
12.67a
T7 14
63
11
88
29.33a
T8 4
51
2
57
19.33a
T9 16
67
5
88
29.33a
T10 8
63
16
87
29.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1442.133
160.237
0.202 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
15862.667
793.133
TOTAL 29
17.304
CV=57.93%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
45
Appendix Table 21. Population of Noctuidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 39
17
15
71
23.67a
T2 74
20
24
118
39.67a
T3 35
30
30
95
31.67a
T4 55
15
43
113
37.67a
T5 40
24
33
97
32.33a
T6 65
20
39
124
41.33a
T7 25
16
17
58
19.33a
T8 15
16
24
55
18.33a
T9 35
24
29
88
29.33a
T10 34
5
35
74
24.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1802.700
200.300
0.815 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
4912.667
245.633
TOTAL 29
6715.367
CV=25.02%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
46
Appendix Table 22. Population of Nymphalidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 1
0
1 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1.367
0.152
2.278 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
1.333
0.067
Total 29
2.700
CV=20.81%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
47
Appendix Table 23. Population of Plutellidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T9 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T10 1
0
1 2
0.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.800
0.089
0.667 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2.667
0.133
TOTAL 29
3.467
CV=23.06%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
48
Appendix Table 24. Population of Sesiidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T9 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.300 0.33
1.000 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=13.05%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
49
Appendix Table 25. Population of Scarabaeidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
7
2
9
3.00a
T2 0
2
1
3
1.00a
T3 0
7
2
9
3.00a
T4 0
8
1
9
3.00a
T5 0
6
6
12
4.00a
T6 0
17
1
18
6.00a
T7 0
5
0
5
1.67a
T8 0
6
1
7
2.33a
T9 0
11
0
11
3.67a
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 75.367
8.374
0.403 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
416.000
20.800
TOTAL 29
491.367
CV=65.91%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
50
Appendix Table 26. Population of Scatopsidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 102
345
70
517
172.33a
T2 42
86
132
260
86.67a
T3 29
100
158
287
95.67a
T4 73
214
43
330
110.00a
T5 103
190
120
413
137.67a
T6 79
121
109
309
103.00a
T7 52
111
90
253
84.33a
T8 75
216
84
375
125.00a
T9 186
101
181
468
156.00a
T10 53
75
164
292
97.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9
24442.800
2715.867
0.516 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
105204.000
5260.200
TOTAL 29
129646.800
CV=27.57%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
51
Appendix Table 27. Population of Staphylinidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T3 0
1
1
2
0.67a
T4 1
0
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
2
2
0.67a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
1
0 1
0.33a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 2.033
0.226
0.847 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
5.333
0.267
TOTAL 29
7.367
CV=29.47%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
52
Appendix Table 28. Population of Sepsidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS TREATMENTS TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
79
79
26.33
T2 0
0
29
29
9.67a
T3 0
0
32
32
10.67a
T4 1
0
18
19
6.33a
T5 0
1
16
17
5.67a
T6 0
0
9
9
3.00a
T7 0
0
62
62
20.67a
T8 2
0
18
20
6.67a
T9 2
1
25
28
9.33a
T10 0
0
17
17
5.67a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1473.200
163.689
0.358 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
9142.000
457.100
TOTAL 29
10615.200
CV=100.27%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
53
Appendix Table 29. Population of Tabanidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 0.300 0.33
1.000 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
0.667
0.33
TOTAL 29
0.967
CV=1.000%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
54
Appendix Table 30. Population of Tephtritidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T2 0
2
0
2
0.67a
T3 1
1
0
2
0.67a
T4 1
4
0
5
1.67a
T5 1
1
1
0
1.00a
T6 0
1
3
4
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
1
0
1
0.33a
T9 0
1
4
5
1.67a
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 10.700
1.189
0.892 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
26.667
1.333
TOTAL 29
37.367
CV=41.56%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
55
Appendix Table 31. Population of Tipulidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
2
0.67a
T2 1
0
1
2
0.67a
T3 2
0
2
4
1.33a
T4 4
0
0
4
1.33a
T5 1
0
1
2
0.67a
T6 0
0
1
1
0.33a
T7 1
1
5
7
0.00b
T8 3
0
2
5
0.33a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 3
0
0 3
1.00a
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 12.667
1.407
0.716 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
39.333
1.967
TOTAL 29
52.000
CV=44.08%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
56
Appendix Table 32. Population of Thripidae trapped in the attractants
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
T0 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T1 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T2 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T3 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T4 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T5 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T6 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T7 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T8 0
2
0
2
0.67a
T9 0
0
0
0
0.00b
T10 0
0
0 0
0.00b
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DF SS MS F
Pr > F
VARIATION
VALUE
0.5 0.1
Treatments 9 1.200
0.133
1.000 ns 3.35
5.49
Error 20
2.667
0.133
TOTAL 29
3.867
CV=21.67%
ns
Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits and Vegetables as Fruit Fly
Attractant / EIRA A. BASINGAN
Document Outline
- Effectiveness of Different Fermented Fruits andVegetables as Fruit Fly Attractant
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES