Cold and Heat Treatment Technologies for Post-harvest Control of Fruit Flies in Africa

Grout, T. G.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43226-7_20

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the survey, Eastern Africa and Western Africa were observed to be the leading regions in terms of the fruit fly technological uptake out of the over 101 million people benefitting across the 30 African countries. In Eastern and Western Africa, most of the project interventions were largely carried out through area-wide management approaches [29,52,[70][71][72][73]. The spillover of the area-wide management approaches may have benefitted nontarget households and contributed to a high number of beneficiaries in the region [74,75].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The various fruit fly IPM tactics target different developmental stages (i.e., egg, larva, pupae, adult male or female) of the different fruit fly species (Ceratitis cosyra (Walker), C. rosa Karsch, C. fasciventris Bezzi, C. quilicii De Meyer, Mwatawala & Virgilio, C. anonae Graham, C. capitata Wiedemann, B. dorsalis, B. zonata, B. latifrons and Z. cucurbitae) [7,19,28]. The postharvest treatment targeting B. dorsalis, C. capitata and C. rosa based on hot water treatments for mangoes and cold treatments for citrus and avocado fruits have also been developed and disseminated jointly with the private sectors [29].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Insight on Fruit Fly IPM Technology Uptake and Barriers to Scaling in Africa

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tephritid fruit flies are considered one of the world’s most notorious pests of horticultural crops, causing extensive direct and indirect damage. Over the past two decades, a comprehensive, integrated pest management (IPM) package for the management of a plethora of fruit fly pests, including Bactrocera dorsalis, B. latifrons, B. zonata, Ceratitis cosyra, C. rosa, C. fasciventris, C. quilici, C. capitata, Dacus spp. and Zeugodacus cucurbitae, has been developed, disseminated and promoted among horticultural growers in Africa. To estimate the numbers of beneficiaries reached by the fruit fly IPM technology and the barriers to technology uptake, we interviewed 290 experts in 30 African countries covering five regions of the continent, and the responses collected were represented as follows: Southern Africa (39.1%), Eastern Africa (31.6%), Western Africa (18.0%), Central Africa (9.0%) and Northern Africa (2.0%). Our results revealed that the use of fruit fly IPM technologies varied across the regions, with Eastern Africa and Western Africa the leading regions, with the highest IPM technology penetration. Field sanitation remains the most common practice for managing fruit flies, followed by protein bait spray, use of biopesticides, male annihilation technique and parasitoid releases. According to the survey, over 101 million people have benefited from the fruit fly IPM interventions in the countries surveyed representing only 19.1% of the estimated beneficiaries. The region that benefitted the most was Eastern Africa (50.2 million), followed by Central and Western Africa (11.7 to 17.7 million), and Southern and Northern Africa had the fewest beneficiaries (10.4 to 11.0 million). The limitations to the IPM technologies uptake varied among the regions, but the common ones include a lack of awareness of the IPM technologies, a lack of access to the IPM products, insufficient training, a low involvement of private sectors and a lack of policies for the regulation of IPM technologies. Although significant strides have been made in promoting the fruit fly IPM technologies over the past two decades, our study reveals that the demand surpasses the current supply. Our study recommends a comprehensive strategy for the dissemination and promotion of the technologies through a multi-institutional alliance that enhances public and private partnerships, digital platforms and youth engagement to consolidate previous gains at the regional and continental levels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insight on Fruit Fly IPM Technology Uptake and Barriers to Scaling in Africa

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Integrated pest management of fruit flies usually employs orchard sanitation, cover sprays, soil drenches with insecticide, mass trapping, toxic bait applications, and, in recent decades, sterile male releases (Gordello, Sarwar, Vargas, Leblanc, & Inouye, 2015;Paranhos, Nava, & Malavasi, 2019). Postharvest control of fruit flies include cold quarantine, hydrothermal treatment, and gamma radiation (Grout, 2016). A general concern about the development of resistant populations, food and environment contamination with pesticide residues, and other side effects of insecticides led to development of microbial biopesticides (Arthurs & Dara, 2019;Nollet & Rathore, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying local entomopathogenic fungi strains to the soil can control Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) Wiedemann adults

Gava

Tavares

Gonçalves

et al. 2019

Biocontrol Science and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ceratitis capitata causes direct and indirect damage to fruit production worldwide, reducing productivity and increasing costs. Currently, there is no effective control strategy for fruit fly pupae in the soil. We selected virulent local entomopathogenic fungi (EF) strains for application against pupae of C. capitata and evaluated their effects on the postemergence survival of adults in laboratory conditions. A cage was designed to study mortality in apparently healthy C. capitata adults that emerged from soils previously treated with EF conidia. This approach allowed the selection of four strains of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin (Hypocreales: Cordycipitaceae) and two strains of Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) that were virulent to C. capitata pupae. The application of B. bassiana strains LCB53 and LCB289 caused 44.4 and 60.1% corrected pupae mortality and 83.5 and 88.7% corrected mortality of pupae plus adults, respectively. The median lethal time after adult emergence was 4.0 and 3.5 days for LCB53 and LCB289, respectively. The application of conidial preparations to natural soil reduced insect emergence and the adult life span and represents a promising strategy for fruit fly integrated management.

show abstract

Baiting and Male Annihilation Techniques for Fruit Fly Suppression in Africa

Ekesi

2016

Fruit Fly Research and Development in Africa - Towards a Sustainable Management Strategy to Improve Horticulture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cold and Heat Treatment Technologies for Post-harvest Control of Fruit Flies in Africa

Cited by 3 publications

References 33 publications

Insight on Fruit Fly IPM Technology Uptake and Barriers to Scaling in Africa

Insight on Fruit Fly IPM Technology Uptake and Barriers to Scaling in Africa

Applying local entomopathogenic fungi strains to the soil can control Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) Wiedemann adults

Baiting and Male Annihilation Techniques for Fruit Fly Suppression in Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About