International Journal of Horticulture, 2024, Vol.14, No.3, 127-134 http://hortherbpublisher.com/index.php/ijh 129 attractants were added with Malathion to make baits and to knock down the flies that were attracted to the food component. The detail of the treatments included for experimentation was as follows: Table 2 Treatments selected for experimentation Treatment number Treatment name Treatment composition T1 Cue Lure (Division, 2017) Cue Lure 40 mL, Ethyl Alcohol 60 mL, Malathion 20 mL T2 Methyl Eugenol Lure (Division, 2017) Methyl Eugenol 40 mL, Ethyl Alcohol 60 mL, Malathion 20 mL T3 ACV Lure (Maung et al., 2019) Apple Cider Vinegar 90 mL, Malathion 10 mL T4 Protein, Hydrolysate, Bait (PH) (Lloyd et al., 2003) Baker’s Yeast 2 g, Sugar 8 g, Water 90 mL, Malathion 10 mL T5 Mint Lure (Sumatra, 2012) Mint Paste 50 gm, Jaggary 10 gm, Water 90 mL, Malathion 10 mL T6 Brewery Liquor (BW) (Piñero et al., 2017) Brewery liquor 90 mL, Malathion 10 mL T7 Banana lure Mashed banana pulp 100 gm, Malathion 10 mL T8 Control Water 90 mL, Malathion 10 mL All treatment solutions were prepared and soaked in a cotton wick for 24 hours. Packaged mineral water bottles were used to make Lynfield Traps with 4 equidistant holes of size 6-8 mm using the hot iron rod of the same size just below the bottleneck. The cotton wick so prepared was kept inside the empty bottles and hung using threads to fit in the bottle. 1.4 Data collection and observation The fruit flies collected in the Lynfield trap were counted and categorized according to species and sexes at a fortnight interval of trap placement (PPD, 2013). The specimens were preserved by dry preservation techniques in the insect collection box. The sexes were distinguished based on the presence or absence of sharp ovipositor. The distinction between species was made according to identification guidelines and the identification chart provided by: • Occurrences and field identities of fruit flies in sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) orchards in Sinduli, Nepal (Adhikari and Joshi, 2018) • Field Guide for Identification of Fruit Fly Species of Genus Bactrocera Prevalent in and around Mango Orchards (Choudhary et al., 2014) • PQPMC, NPPO, Nepal guidelines in insect collection and identification (PQPMC, 2014) • THE AUSTRALIAN HANDBOOK FOR IDENTIFICATION OF FRUIT FLIES, Version 3.1 (Schutze et al, 2018). 1.5 Staistical analysis The obtained data were systematically arranged, entered, and processed for analysis using Ms. Excel program. The collected data will be subjected to the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT) was used to compare means which were separated by (LSD) at a 5% level of significance (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). 2Results 2.1 Trapped fruit fly species The fruit fly species trapped in the lures were collected, observed and counted as per the protocol provided by Plant Protection Directorate (PPD, 2013). The identification of fruit flies was carried in accordance with their taxonomical characteristics and differentiation among the traps was found in related to species (PQPMC, 2014). Of all the collected fruit fly specimens, two different genera, Zeugodacus and Bactrocera were observed having different species. The genus Zeugodacus observed in the traps includes, Zeugodacus tau (ZT), Zeugodacus scutellaris (ZS), Zeugodacus cucurbitae (ZC). Also, the genus Bactrocera includes, Bacterocera dorsalis (BD), Bacterocera dorsalis complex (BDC), Bacterocera zonata (BZ), Bacterocera minax (BM).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==