Skip to main content
PMC home page
ZooKeys logoLink to ZooKeys
. 2015 Nov 26;(540):539–557. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.540.9672

A review of the current knowledge on Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Africa, with a list of species included in Zeugodacus

Marc De Meyer 1, Hélène Delatte 2, Maulid Mwatawala 3, Serge Quilici 2,†, Jean-François Vayssières 4, Massimiliano Virgilio 1,5
PMCID: PMC4714087  PMID: 26798277

Abstract Abstract

This paper reviews all available information regarding the occurrence and biology of the melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett), in the Afrotropical Region, including data on invasion history, distribution patterns, population genetics, host range, and interspecific competition. Although limited intraspecific variability has been observed within the region regarding the above mentioned aspects, there seems to be no indication that Zeugodacus cucurbitae represents a species complex. A checklist of all of the species included in Zeugodacus as recently proposed by Virgilio et al. (2015) is provided.

Keywords: Melon fly, Cucurbitaceae, Afrotropical, pest species

Introduction

The melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) is a major agricultural pest of Asian origin. Despite the vernacular English name and the species-group name, it is reported from a series of unrelated host families in addition to the vast host range within Cucurbitaceae (White and Elson-Harris 1994). The fact that a number of populations of Zeugodacus cucurbitae differ in their reported host plants, morphology, etc. from region to region, resulted in the species being included in the Coordinated Research Project on “Resolution of cryptic species complexes of tephritid pests to overcome constraints to SIT application and international trade”, initiated by the Joint FAO/IAEA Programme in 2010. This paper reviews the taxonomic position and history of the species within the Tephritidae, provides information on its worldwide distribution and genetic diversity, summarizes the current knowledge regarding the species in Africa, and provides a checklist of all of the species included in Zeugodacus as recently proposed by Virgilio et al. (2015).

Classification and taxonomic history

Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Figure 1) was originally described as Dacus cucurbitae by Coquillett (1899) from two males and two females bred from larvae found in green cucumbers in Honolulu, Hawaii (USA). Bactrocera was considered a subgenus of Dacus until Drew (1989) proposed a classification recognizing both taxa as genera, based upon the abdominal tergites being fused, (in Dacus), or not (in Bactrocera). Drew placed Zeugodacus cucurbitae in the subgenus Zeugodacus, first under Dacus following previous authors (Drew 1973), and later under Bactrocera (Drew 1989). The subgenus Zeugodacus belongs to a group of subgenera, characterized by the posterior lobe of the male lateral surstylus being long and the male abdominal sternite 5 being slightly concave along the posterior margin (rather than having a deep V shaped indentation) (Drew and Hancock 1999). At least 50% of the species included in the Zeugodacus group, for which host plant records are available, are cucurbit feeders. Recently the systematic position of Zeugodacus was revised as Bactrocera, Dacus and the subgenera of the Zeugodacus group have different evolutionary histories (Krosch et al. 2012, Virgilio et al. 2015). The molecular data provided support the hypothesis of White (2006) who suggested a common ancestry for Zeugodacus and Dacus (but see Hancock and Drew 2015 for a different hypothesis). Here we refer to the classification proposed by Virgilio et al. (2015) by using the new generic combination Zeugodacus (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae for the melon fly, although most existing literature refer to it under the former combination, Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Habitus image of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (photo R.S. Copeland).

The genus Zeugodacus currently includes 192 species (see list in Supplementary material 1). Most species within this genus are restricted to the Oriental and Australasian Regions, with a few species reaching into the eastern Palearctic in China and Japan, except for Zeugodacus cucurbitae which was introduced into other parts of the world. Zeugodacus cucurbitae is rather distinctive in adult morphology and can be differentiated from other related species by the following combination of characters: scutum red-brown, with medial and lateral yellow postsutural vittae; large apical spot on the wing with posterior margin reaching about halfway between vein R4+5 and vein M; infuscation present over crossvein dm-cu and usually also crossvein r-m, wing cells bc and c hyaline, abdomen with a narrow transverse black band across basal margin of tergite 3 and a medial longitudinal black stripe over tergites 3-5 (White 2006, Drew and Romig 2013).

Contrary to other species like the Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) populations found in Africa (see Drew et al. 2005, White 2006), there is little intraspecific variability observed in adult Zeugodacus cucurbitae specimens with regard to scutal and abdominal patterns. Drew and Romig (2013) only mention that the fuscous marking on the scutum can be absent or present. White (2006) indicates that the anterior supra-alar and prescutellar acrostical setae can be rarely absent (the latter being one of the main differentiating characters between Dacus and most Bactrocera species), while the basal scutellar seta can be rarely present (hence, four setae in total rather than the usual two which are situated apically on the scutellum). The crossband on r-m is not always distinct. However, these differences do not seem to reflect any particular pattern linked to cryptic speciation but rather phenotypic plasticity. Zeugodacus cucurbitae was not included in the list of the Asian species complexes defined by Drew and Romig (2013). No key is available to differentiate it from all other Zeugodacus species. Drew (1989) provides a general key for Bactrocera of the Australasian and Oceanian regions, including Zeugodacus cucurbitae and 19 other Zeugodacus species, while Drew and Romig (2013) provide descriptions and some diagnostic features for 101 species from South-East Asia, but no key. White (2006) and Virgilio et al. (2014) provide a key for African Dacina including Zeugodacus cucurbitae.

DNA barcoding shows remarkably low intraspecific variability. A pilot study including COI barcodes of 44 specimens originating from 11 countries along the entire distribution range (Virgilio and De Meyer, unpublished data) revealed an average K2P genetic distance (Kimura 1980) of only 0.02% (Figure 2). Similarly, the concatenation of mitochondrial DNA sequences (COI and ND6 gene fragments) from 100 specimens from Asia, Hawaii, African continent and islands of the Indian Ocean resulted in 22 haplotypes with 21 polymorphic sites and an average p-distance of only 0.003% (Jacquard et al. 2013). Minimum Spanning Network indicated the occurrence of two main haplotype groups corresponding to specimens from (a) Asia and Hawaii, and (b) the African continent including also Reunion Island.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

NJ tree (K2P distance, Kimura 1980) including 44 COI DNA barcodes of Zeugodacus cucurbitae from 11 countries (Virgilio and De Meyer, unpublished data).

Distribution, origin and population structure

Although Zeugodacus cucurbitae was originally described from the Hawaiian Islands, its presence there was the result of accidental human-mediated introduction (Bess 1961). About a decade later the first record from India was published (Froggatt 1909). Since then, it has been reported from multiple countries in the Asian and Australian-Oceanian Regions (Dhillon et al. 2005, Drew 1982, 1989, Drew and Romig 2013). It is abundant throughout Central and East Asia (including Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, China, Indonesia and the Philippines) and Oceania (including New Guinea and the Mariana Islands). In some of these regions, it has been the subject of a number of introductions, eradication attempts and subsequent re-introductions. This is in particular the case in parts of the Pacific like the Northern Mariana Islands and Nauru (Dhillon et al. 2005), although it has also been successfully eradicated (Suckling et al. 2014) from regions in which it was well established, such as southern Japan in the 1990ies, using Sterile Insect Technique (Koyama et al. 2004). Since 1956 Zeugodacus cucurbitae has been detected a number of times in California (Papadopoulos et al. 2013), but its permanent establishment on the North American mainland is not confirmed.

In Africa, the first record dates back to 1936 from Tanzania (based upon a male specimen in the collection of the Natural History Museum in London, collected at Tanga on January 10th, 1936 by N. Krauss. See Bianchi and Krauss (1937) for report on this expedition, although this record is not specifically mentioned). No other species that are closely related to Zeugodacus cucurbitae are found in Africa, and its occurrence on the continent is also attributed to introduction. However, it is unclear whether it was introduced at that time (1936) or whether it was already present for a much longer time. There are historical ties between the eastern coastal area of Africa (dominated by the so-called Swahili culture) and the near East and Indian subcontinent that date back to 100 AD (Gilbert 2004), with movements and shipments of commodities between both regions. The first records from the African mainland were restricted to coastal Tanzania and Kenya (first record 1937) (Table 1).

Table 1.

First records of Zeugodacus cucurbitae in African countries (based upon records in Orian and Moutia 1960, Vayssières et al. 2007 and De Meyer and White 2007).

Country Locality Year
Tanzania Tanga 1936
Kenya Rabai 1937
Mauritius N/S 1942
Réunion N/S 1972
Gambia Brikama 1999
Ivory Coast Korhogo 1999
Seychelles Mahé 1999
Mali Bamako 2000
Burkina Faso Orodara 2000
Guinea Foulaya 2000
Nigeria Moruwa 2001
Cameroon Garoua 2002
Senegal Dakar 2003
Ghana Sagyimase 2003
Benin Cotonou 2004
Niger Dosso 2004
DRCongo Kinshasa 2006
Togo Agou-Logopé 2006
Sudan Singa 2006
Sierra Leone Freetown 2006
Uganda Jinja 2009
Burundi Kigwena 2010
Ethiopia Arba Minch 2010
Malawi Kumbali 2010
Mozambique Mocimboa da Praia 2013
Open in a new tab

Zeugodacus cucurbitae has also been introduced to several islands in the western Indian Ocean, with the first record in Mauritius in 1942 (Orian and Moutia 1960) and in La Réunion in 1972 (Vayssières 1999, White et al. 2001). More recently (since 1999) it was reported from the island Mahé of the Seychelles (White et al. 2001), where it is now also considered established. Its presence on the Comoro Archipelago is questionable (De Meyer et al. 2012) and so far no records are reported from Madagascar. Despite its longtime occurrence in eastern Africa and the Indian Ocean, Zeugodacus cucurbitae apparently did not spread rapidly to other parts of Africa. The first record from Central Africa was a mention in Fontem et al. (1999), where it is reported (as Dacus cucurbitae) as the most prevalent insect pest observed by farmers on tomatoes in Cameroon. No voucher specimens could be traced to any collections in order to confirm this record, and there is the possibility that it was based on a misidentification of another dacine attacking tomatoes. For example, Dacus punctatifrons Karsch has been reported as a major pest of tomato in Cameroon (Okolle and Ntonifor 2005). The first voucher specimens from West Africa that could be confirmed to belong to Zeugodacus cucurbitae are from Ivory Coast and the Gambia and were collected in 1999 at Korhogo and Brikama, respectively, while in 2000 one of the authors (JFV) discovered it in Mali in cuelure traps and emerging from young pumpkins. Since the beginning of the 21st Century, several records of Zeugodacus cucurbitae from West and Central Africa became known (Table 1) and it is now well established in most parts of the region (Vayssières et al. 2007; Figure 3a).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Distribution patterns for African tephritids: a Zeugodacus cucurbitae b Dacus ciliatus c Dacus bivittatus d Dacus vertebratus e Dacus frontalis f Dacus punctatifrons (source of data: http://projects.bebif.be/fruitfly/index.html).

In eastern Africa, Zeugodacus cucurbitae has been reported from a much larger range than just Kenya and Tanzania and it is now found from Ethiopia and the Sudan to Malawi and northern Mozambique (Table 1). It is unclear whether these 21st century records are a true reflection of a further recent expansion of its geographical range or that they are due to incomplete sampling in preceding decades. However, the currently observed dispersal of this species has also increased the awareness of its economic significance. Zeugodacus cucurbitae has been considered a major pest species of commercially grown cucurbits in large parts of Asia (Kapoor 1989, Koyama 1989) and Hawaii (Harris 1989) for a long time. However, in the Afrotropical region, not much research was devoted to this species in comparison to other cucurbit infesting dacines, except for La Réunion (White and Elson-Harris 1994, Vayssières 1999, Ryckewaert et al. 2010) and Mauritius (Sookar et al. 2012, 2013). This is currently changing due to the recent observations on its distribution and dominance in particular crops (see below under ‘host range and interspecific competition’).

Given the current geographic distribution of other Zeugodacus species (all restricted to the Oriental, Australasian and eastern Palearctic Regions) and the historical data of its occurrences in Africa and Hawaii, it is generally assumed that Zeugodacus cucurbitae originated in the Oriental Region and that its current distribution in Africa and in other parts of the world is the result of several invasion events (see Virgilio et al. 2010). The analyses by Jacquard et al. (2013) of sequences obtained from samples from throughout the known distribution range of Zeugodacus cucurbitae revealed a main genetic split between samples from (a) Asia and Hawaii, and (b) Sub Saharan Africa and La Réunion Island. The main differences between the African and all other samples suggested a bottleneck(s) following introduction, yet this model was not supported by the studies of Virgilio et al. (2010). Relationships between populations from different geographic areas were further resolved through a macrogeographic population structure analysis based on 25 populations genotyped at 12 microsatellite loci (Virgilio et al. 2010). Populations could be subdivided into five main geographic groups (African continent, Western Indian Ocean islands, Indian Subcontinent, South-East Asia, and Hawaii; Fig. 4).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Individual admixture proportions (K=5) of 25 different populations of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (after Virgilio et al. 2010).

Levels of genetic diversity and individual Bayesian assignments (Virgilio et al. 2010) seem to suggest that Zeugodacus cucurbitae originated on the Indian Subcontinent and might have expanded its range to South-East Asia and Hawaii on one hand and to Africa and the Indian Ocean islands on the other (although recent anthropogenic transport might have contributed to inter-regional gene flow). Sookar et al. (2013) looked at the mating compatibility between populations of Mauritius, the Seychelles and Hawaii but only found random, non-assortative mating between the populations. Within La Réunion, Jacquard et al. (2013) also described the occurrence of local genetic clusters with distinct distributions across the eastern and western coast of the island. These clusters have possible African origin and are interconnected by high levels of gene flow both within La Réunion and between La Réunion and the African mainland.

Host range and interspecific competition

Dhillon et al. (2005) list 81 plant species, including several non-cucurbits, as possible hosts for Zeugodacus cucurbitae. However, several of these hosts are considered doubtful because they were either based on casual observations (White and Elson-Harris 1994) or they are a result of induced oviposition under laboratory conditions. The latter approach provides unreliable data regarding the true natural host range of any fruit fly and should be considered with caution when determining host status (Aluja and Mangan 2008). De Meyer et al. (2007) list 45 plant species, belonging to 9 different families, that are considered hosts of Zeugodacus cucurbitae in Africa (including Indian Ocean islands) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Host records for Zeugodacus cucurbitae from Africa.

Family Scientific name Country, Reference
Anacardiaceae Anacardium occidentale L. Benin, Burkina Faso: Vayssières et al. 2007
Anacardiaceae Mangifera indica L. Benin, Mali: Vayssières et al. 2008; Ivory Coast: Hala et al. 2008; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010; Mauritius: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Annonaceae Annona senegalensis Pers. Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007
Cucurbitaceae Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrader Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Cucurbitaceae Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. and Nakai Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010; Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Cucurbitaceae Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt Kenya: White 2006; Copeland et al. 2009; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010; Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Cucurbitaceae Coccinia trilobata (Cogn.) C. Jeffrey Kenya: Copeland et al. 2009
Cucurbitaceae Cucumeropsis mannii Naud. Benin: Vayssières et al. 2007
Cucurbitaceae Cucumis anguria L. Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Cucurbitaceae Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach Kenya: White 2006; Copeland et al. 2009; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Cucurbitaceae Cucumis figarei Naud. Kenya: White 2006
Cucurbitaceae Cucumis ficifolius A. Rich Kenya: Copeland et al. 2009
Cucurbitaceae Cucumis melo L. Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010; Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Cucurbitaceae Cucumis sativus L. Kenya: White 2006; Copeland et al. 2009; Tanzania: White 2006; Mwatawala et al. 2010; Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Mauritius: Sookar et al. 2012; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita maxima
Duchesne ex Lam.		 Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Mauritius: Sookar et al. 2012; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita moschata
Duchesne		 Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita pepo L. Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Mauritius: Sookar et al. 2012; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Cucurbita sp. Kenya: 1937; South African National Collections Pretoria (South Africa) data; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Cucurbitaceae Cyclanthera pedata (L.) Schrader Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Cucurbitaceae Diplocyclos palmatus (L.) C.Jeffrey Kenya: White 2006; Copeland et al. 2009
Cucurbitaceae Kedrostis leloja (J.Gmel.) C.Jeffrey Kenya: White 2006; Copeland et al. 2009
Cucurbitaceae Lagenaria leucaritha (Dush) Pusby Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Cucurbitaceae Lagenaria sphaerica (Sond.) Naudin Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl. Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb. Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010; Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Luffa cylindrica M.Roem. Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Momordica charantia L. Kenya: White 2006; Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010; Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Momordica foetida Schumach. Kenya: White 2006; Copeland et al. 2009; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Cucurbitaceae Momordica rostrata A. Zimm. Kenya: Copeland et al. 2009; Tanzania: Mwatawala (pers.observations)
Cucurbitaceae Momordica trifoliata Hook. f. Kenya: White 2006; Copeland et al. 2009; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Cucurbitaceae Sechium edule (Jacq.) Sw. Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Trichosanthes cucumerina L. Mauritius and Réunion: Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001; Réunion: Vayssières 1999
Cucurbitaceae Telfairia occidentalis Hook Ivory Coast: Vayssières et al. 2007
Cannellaceae Warburgia ugandensis Sprague Kenya: Munro 1984
Caricaceae Carica papaya L. Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Oxalidaceae Averrhoa carambola L. Benin, Ivory Coast: Vayssières et al. 2007
Passifloraceae Passiflora edulis Sims Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Quilici and Jeuffrault 2001
Rutaceae Citrus reticulata Blanco Benin: Vayssières et al. 2007
Rutaceae Citrus sinensis Osbeck Benin, Burkina Faso: Vayssières et al. 2007
Solanaceae Capsicum annuum L. var. longum DC Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010.
Solanaceae Capsicum frutescens L. Western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007
Solanaceae Solanum lycopersicum L. Réunion: Vayssières 1999; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Solanaceae Solanum aethiopicum L. Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Solanaceae Solanum anguivi Lam. Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Solanaceae Solanum macrocarpon L. Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Solanaceae Solanum nigrum L. Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010
Open in a new tab

The majority of these records are based on rearing of infested fruits collected in the wild. Twenty-nine of them are Cucurbitaceae. Cucumis spp. (in particular cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) and melon (Cucumis melo L.)) and Momordica spp. (in particular Momordica cf trifoliata Hook. f. and bitter gourd (Momordica charantia L.)) were the preferential hosts both in West and East African studies (western Africa: Vayssières et al. 2007; Tanzania: Mwatawala et al. 2010). These studies have shown that in general cucurbit hosts are preferred over non-cucurbit hosts, with very low infestation rates and incidences in the latter. However, Vayssières et al. (2007) indicated that there are geographical differences with Zeugodacus cucurbitae being more oligophagous on La Réunion Island (with no genetic differences between flies infesting wild and cultivated hosts, see Jacquard et al. 2013), while having a broader host range in western Africa. Also, infestations rates can differ according to the region. For example Cucumis melo yielded 26-50 specimens/kg of fruits in West Africa, compared to 51–75 in Réunion, and more than 100 in Tanzania. Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl. yielded very low numbers in West and East Africa but more than 100 specimens/kg in Réunion. These examples are, however, based on too limited a number of samples to draw definite conclusions, and it is not clear what are all of contributing causes of these differences in infestation rates. Seasonal differences (Mwatawala et al. 2009), weather variability, host availability, and interspecific competition could also be factors (Mwatawala et al. 2009, 2010, Vayssières et al. 2008). Although the low preference for non-cucurbit hosts has limited impact on actual crop loss, the mere presence in commercial hosts, such as mango (Mangifera indica L.), citrus (Citrus spp.) or carambola (Averrhoa carambola L.), can have regulatory implications for export of particular commodities. On the other hand, other polyphagous fruit fly species in Africa, such as Bactrocera dorsalis, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) or Ceratitis rosa Karsch, which attack these commercial non-cucurbit hosts, are rarely encountered in Cucurbitaceae (Mwatawala et al. 2009).

While no other Zeugodacus species occurs in Africa, various indigenous dacines belonging to the genus Dacus are known cucurbit pests, the most noteworthy and widespread being Dacus ciliatus Loew, Dacus bivittatus (Bigot), Dacus vertebratus Bezzi, Dacus frontalis Becker, and Dacus punctatifrons. All these species have a large geographic overlap with Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Figure 3b–f) and there is thus, interspecific competition for the same larval food source. Studies on the interspecific interactions between these cucurbit feeders in Africa are, however, scarce. Mwatawala et al. (2010) studied the host range and relative abundance of cucurbit feeders in central Tanzania. They concluded that Zeugodacus cucurbitae dominated most cucurbit hosts, in comparison to the indigenous Dacus species. Only Dacus ciliatus was predominant in some hosts like Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) Matsum. and Nakai (and Momordica charantia to a lesser extent). A pilot study exploring genetic differentiation between 42 Tanzanian Zeugodacus cucurbitae specimens reared from different cucurbit hosts (Cucumis dipsaceus Ehrenb. ex Spach, Cucurbita sp., Luffa sp., Momordica rostrata A. Zimm.) and genotyped at 19 microsatellite loci did not suggest the occurrence of possible host races (Figure 5)

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Zeugodacus cucurbitae specimens (n = 42) reared from four different hosts (Cucumis dipsaceus, Cucurbita sp., Luffa sp., Momordica rostrata) at the Sokoine University of Agriculture (Morogoro, Tanzania) and genotyped at 19 microsatellite loci (Mwatawala, Virgilio, De Meyer, unpublished data).

On La Réunion Island (1996-1999), three species (Zeugodacus cucurbitae, Dacus ciliatus, and Dacus demmerezi (Bezzi)) infested a range of 16 cucurbit species (Vayssières and Carel 1998; Vayssières 1999). The altitudinal limits of Zeugodacus cucurbitae, Dacus ciliatus and Dacus demmerezi were, respectively, 1200m, 1400m, and 1600m during the hot season. These three species have an overlap on all cucurbit crops up to 600m during the cold season and until 1200m during the hot season. At least one abiotic factor (altitude) and two biotic ones (host availability, interspecific competition) are the main screening factors for species-dominance in La Réunion. Among the 16 cucurbit hosts, Dacus ciliatus dominated in the cultivated hosts Citrullus colocynthis (L.) Schrader, Cyclanthera pedata (L.) Schrader, Secchium edule (Jacq.) Sw., and several cultivars of Cucumis melo and Cucurbita pepo L., which were cultivated above the altitudinal limit of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (600m during the cold season and up to 1200 meters during the hot season). Zeugodacus cucurbitae dominated on wild species such as Coccinia grandis (L.) Voigt., Cucumis anguria L., Lagenaria sphaerica (Sond.) Naudin, Momordica charantia, and also cultivated ones such as Citrullus lanatus, Cucumis melo, Cucumis sativus, Curcubita pepo, Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb., Luffa cylindrica M. Roem., Momordica sp., and Trichosanthes cucumerina L. (Vayssières 1999). Vayssières et al. (2008) compared in detail the demography of Zeugodacus cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus on La Réunion. They concluded that both species have a distinctly different life-history pattern with Zeugodacus cucurbitae being characterized by a later onset of reproduction, a longer oviposition time, longer life span and higher fecundity, while Dacus ciliatus has earlier reproduction, lower oviposition time, shorter life span and lower fecundity.

These differences in demography seem to lead to exploitative and interference competition between the two species (and most likely other cucurbit infesters as well), with Zeugodacus cucurbitae having an advantage over Dacus ciliatus. This predominance is suggested by the majority of infestations in wild cucurbit species in the field by Zeugodacus cucurbitae. Duyck et al. (2004) reviewed the invasion biology of (polyphagous) fruit flies and demonstrated that presence of several introduced species in areas already occupied by other tephritids, results in a decrease in number and niche shift of the pre-established species. This is largely governed by life-history strategies that species adopt for interactions in near-optimal conditions. Although the review focused on polyphagous species, a similar scenario should be considered for oligophagous pests like Zeugodacus cucurbitae. So far, all studies indicate that Bactrocera species are best adapted to exploit and to compete with other species in the same ecological niche (Duyck et al. 2006, Vayssières et al. 2008). It has also been suggested that host-range can allow niche differentiation (Duyck et al. 2008) and that this could be the reason for the different host ranges observed for Zeugodacus cucurbitae in La Réunion versus West Africa (Vayssières et al. 2007), with Zeugodacus cucurbitae being more polyphagous in West Africa. While only two indigenous cucurbit-feeding fruit flies are found on La Réunion (Vayssières and Carel 1998, De Meyer et al. 2012), at least nine are reported from West Africa (De Meyer et al. 2013). This could reflect higher interspecific competition in the latter case, with occasional shifts of Zeugodacus cucurbitae to non-cucurbits.

In addition to interspecific competition, the host availability and ecological niches will also affect the occurrence and impact of Zeugodacus cucurbitae. Earlier studies in Hawaii have shown that it is a species that is mainly found in warmer areas and that its abundance declines with increasing rainfall and increasing elevation (Vargas et al. 1989). This preference for warmer periods was confirmed in studies in La Réunion (Vayssières 1999). Studies in Tanzania showed that Zeugodacus cucurbitae was either absent or relatively less abundant at higher elevations along a transect from approx. 600 masl to 1650 masl. However, the exact relationship between these biotic and abiotic factors that can have an impact on the host range in different African populations, is currently poorly known and requires further investigation.

Conclusion

Morphologically and genetically Zeugodacus cucurbitae shows mating compatibility among test populations and limited intraspecific genetic and morphological variability. It is still not clear if the relatively recent records for this species on the African mainland (1930s in East Africa, beginning of 21st century in West Africa) are the result of local expansions of already established African populations or of one or more introductions from non-African sources. Regardless differences in host range reported across African populations there is no evidence supporting the existence of genetically isolated host races with specific feeding preferences and the observed host range variability seems more to be related to factors such as interspecific competition, host availability, and ecological niche partitioning. Although our study focused on the African populations, there is no indication that the situation might differ across the distribution of Zeugodacus cucurbitae.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Joint FAO/IAEA Programme, which initiated the Coordinated Research Project on resolution of cryptic species complexes of tephritid pests to overcome constraints to SIT application and international trade, and provided support to the authors to conduct part of the research and to attend the research coordination meetings. Some of the data presented here are also the result of financial support by the Belgian Development Cooperation (through the Framework Agreement with the Royal Museum for Central Africa, RMCA) to Sokoine University of Agriculture, and by the Belgian Science Policy to the Joint Experimental Molecular Unit (JEMU) of the RMCA and the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences. We thank Prof. Biagio Virgilio, Allen Norrbom, and Neal Evenhuis for their advice on grammatical issues with regard to Latin names and the gender accordance for the new combinations proposed, as well as Jorge Hendrichs, Allen Norrbom and two anonymous reviewers who made some useful suggestions on previous drafts of this manuscript.

Citation

De Meyer M, Delatte H, Mwatawala M, Quilici S, Vayssières J-F, Virgilio M (2015) A review of the current knowledge on Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera, Tephritidae) in Africa, with a list of species included in Zeugodacus. In: De Meyer M, Clarke AR, Vera MT, Hendrichs J (Eds) Resolution of Cryptic Species Complexes of Tephritid Pests to Enhance SIT Application and Facilitate International Trade. ZooKeys 540: 539–557. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.540.9672

Supplementary materials

Supplementary material 1

Genus Zeugodacus (Diptera, Tephritidae), list of valid species

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Marc De Meyer, Hélène Delatte, Maulid Mwatawala, Serge Quilici, Jean-François Vayssières, Massimiliano Virgilio

Data type: list of species

Explanation note: This list includes species listed under subgenera Asiadacus; Austrodacus; Diplodacus; Hemigymnodacus, comb. n.; Heminotodacus; Hemiparatridacus; Nesodacus; Niuginidacus; Papuodacus; Paradacus; Parasinodacus, comb. n.; Sinodacus; and Zeugodacus.

zookeys-540-539-s001.docx (33.7KB, docx)

References

  1. Aluja M, Mangan RL. (2008) Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) host status determination: critical conceptual, methodological, and regulatory considerations. Annual Review of Entomology 53: 473–502. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093350 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bess H, Van Den Bosch R, Haramoto F. (1961) Fruit fly parasites and their activities in Hawaii. Proceedings, Hawaiian Entomological Society 17: 367–378. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bianchi FA, Krauss NH. (1937) Fruit fly investigations in East Africa. Hawaii Planters’ Record 41: 299–306. [Google Scholar]
  4. Copeland RS, Luke Q, Wharton RA. (2009) Insects reared from the wild fruits of Kenya. Journal of East African Natural History 98: 11–66. doi: 10.2982/028.098.0104 [Google Scholar]
  5. Coquillett DW. (1899) A new trypetid from Hawaii. Entomological News 10: 129–130. [Google Scholar]
  6. De Meyer M, White IM. (2005) Afrotropical fruit flies. http://projects.bebif.be/enbi/fruitfly [accessed 15.II.2015]
  7. De Meyer M, Mohamed S, White IM. (2007) Invasive fruit fly pests in Africa. http://www.africamuseum.be/fruitfly/AfroAsia.htm [accessed 15.II.2015]
  8. De Meyer M, Quilici S, Franck A, Chadhouliati AC, Issimaila MA, Youssoufa MA, Barbet A, Attié M, White IM. (2012) Frugivorous fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae, Dacini) of the Comoro Archipelago. African Invertebrates 53: 69–77. doi: 10.5733/afin.053.0104 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Meyer M, White IM, Goodger KFM. (2013) Notes on the frugivorous fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) fauna of western Africa, with description of a new Dacus species. European Journal of Taxonomy 50: 1–17. doi: 10.5852/ejt.2013.50 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dhillon MK, Singh R, Naresh JS, Sharma HC. (2005) The melon fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae: A review of its biology and management. Journal of Insect Science 5: 40–56. doi: 10.1093/jis/5.1.40 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Drew RAI. (1973) Revised descriptions of species of Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae) from the South Pacific area. I. Genus Callantra and the Dacus group of subgenera of genus Dacus. Bulletin of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Division. Plant Industries 652: 1–39. [Google Scholar]
  12. Drew RAI. (1982) Taxonomy. In: Drew RAI, Hooper GHS, Bateman MA. (Eds) Economic Fruit Flies of the South Pacific Region. Brisbane, 1–97.
  13. Drew RAI. (1989) The tropical fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 26: 1–521. [Google Scholar]
  14. Drew RAI, Hancock DL. (1999) Phylogeny of the tribe Dacini (Dacinae) based on morphological, distributional, and biological data. In: Aluja M, Norrbom A. (Eds) Fruit Flies (Tephritidae) Phylogeny and Evolution of Behavior. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 491–533.
  15. Drew RAI, Romig MC. (2013) Tropical Fruit Flies of South-East Asia: (Tephritidae: Dacinae). CABI, Wallingford, 653 pp. [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew RAI, Tsuruta K, White IM. (2005) A new species of pest fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) from Sri Lanka and Africa. African Entomology 13: 149–154. [Google Scholar]
  17. Duyck P-F, David P, Quilici S. (2004) A review of relationships between interspecific competition and invasions in fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae). Ecological Entomology 29: 461–469. doi: 10.1111/j.0307-6946.2004.00638.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Duyck P-F, David P, Quilici S. (2006) Climatic niche partitioning following successive invasions by fruit flies in La Réunion. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 518–526. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01072.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Duyck P-F, David P, Pavoine S, Quilici S. (2008) Can host-range allow niche differentiation of invasive polyphagous fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in La Réunion? Ecological Entomology 33: 439–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2008.00989.x
  20. Fontem DA, Gumedzoe MYD, Nono-Womdim R. (1999) Biological constraints in tomato production in the Western Highlands of Cameroon. Tropicultura 16–17: 89–92.
  21. Froggatt WW. (1909) Official Report on Fruit Fly and other Pests in Various Countries, 1907–8. New South Wales Department of Agriculture, Sydney. [Reprinted in Farmer’s Bulletin, New South Wales Department of Agriculture 24: 1–56.]
  22. Gilbert E. (2004) Dhows and the Colonial Economy of Zanzibar, 1860–1970. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, 167 pp. [Google Scholar]
  23. Hala N, Quilici S, Gnago AJ, N’Depo OR, N’Da Adopo A, Kouassi P, Allou K. (2008) Status of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Côte d’Ivoire and implications for mango exports. In: Sugayama RL, Zucchi RA, Ovruski SM, Sivinski J. (Eds) Fruit Flies of Economic Importance: From Basic to Applied Knowledge. Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, Salvador (Brasil), 233–239.
  24. Hancock DL, Drew RAI. (2015) A review of the Indo-australian subgenus Parazeugodacus Shiraki of Bactrocera Macquart (Ditpera: Tephritidae: Dacinae). Australian Entomologist 42: 91–104. [Google Scholar]
  25. Harris EJ. (1989) Pest status in Hawiian islands and North Africa. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G. (Eds) Fruit Flies, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. In: Helle W (Ed.) World Crop Pests, Vol. 3(A). Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 73–80.
  26. Jacquard C, Virgilio M, Quilici S, De Meyer M, Delatte H. (2013) Population structuring of an economic important pest: the case of the fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae on the tropical island of La Réunion. Biological Invasions 15(4): 759–773. doi: 10.1007/s10530-012-0324-8 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kapoor VC. (1989) Indian sub-continent. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G. (Eds) Fruit Flies, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Helle W (Ed.) World Crop Pests, Vol. 3(A). Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 59–62.
  28. Kimura M. (1980) A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 16: 111–120. doi: 10.1007/BF01731581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Koyama J. (1989) South-east Asia and Japan. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G. (Eds) Fruit Flies, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. In: Helle W (Ed.) World Crop Pests, Vol. 3(A). Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, 63–66.
  30. Koyama J, Kakinohana H, Miyatake T. (2004) Eradication of the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae, in Japan: importance of behavior, ecology, genetics and evolution. Annual Review of Entomology 49: 331–349. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Krosch MN, Schutze MK, Armstrong KF, Graham GC, Yeates DK, Clarke AR. (2012) A molecular phylogeny for the Tribe Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae): Systematic and biogeographic implications. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 64: 513–523. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2012.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mwatawala M, De Meyer M, Makundi RH, Maerere A. (2009) Host range and distribution of fruit-infesting pestiferous fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) in selected areas of Central Tanzania. Bulletin of Entomological Research 99: 629–641. doi: 10.1017/S0007485309006695 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mwatawala M, Maerere A, Makundi RH, De Meyer M. (2010) Incidence and host range of the melon fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Central Tanzania. International Journal of Pest Management 56(3): 265–273. doi: 10.1080/09670871003596792 [Google Scholar]
  34. Norrbom AL, Carroll LE, Thompson RC, White IM, Freidberg A. (1999) Systematic database of names. In: Thompson FC. (Ed.) Fruit Fly Expert Identification System and Systematic Information Database. Myia 9: 65–251.
  35. Okolle JN, Ntonifor NN. (2005) Field ovipositional behavior and laboratory studies on development of Dacus punctatifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) on tomato. Insect Science 12: 393–398. doi: 10.1111/j.1005-295X.2005.00049.x [Google Scholar]
  36. Orian JEA, Moutia LA. (1960) Fruit flies (Trypetidae) of economic importance in Mauritius. Revue Agricole et Sucrière de L’Ile Maurice 39: 142–150. [Google Scholar]
  37. Papadopoulos N, Plant RE, Carey JR. (2013) From trickle to flood: the large-scale, cryptic invasion of California by tropical fruit flies. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013.1466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Quilici S, Jeuffrault E. (2001) Plantes-hôtes des mouches des fruits: Maurice, Réunion, Seychelles. PRF/COI, Imp. Graphica, La Réunion, 227 pp. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ryckewaert P, Deguine J-P, Brévault T, Vayssières JF. (2010) Fruit flies (Diptera : Tephritidae) on vegetable crops in Reunion Island (Indian Ocean): state of knowledge, control methods and prospect for management. Fruits 65: 113–130. doi: 10.1051/fruits/20010006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Sookar P, Alleck M, Buldawoo I, Khayrattee FB, Choolun T, Permalloo S, Rambhunjun M. (2012) Area-wide management of the melon fly Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae). In: Deguine JP (Ed.) Actes du séminaire international de clôture Gamour, Saint-Pierre, La Réunion, 21–24 November 2011, 98–102.
  41. Sookar P, Haq I, Jessup A, McInnis D, Franz G, Wornoayporn V, Permalloo S. (2013) Mating compatibility among Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations from three different origins. Journal of Applied Entomology 137: 69–74. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01576.x [Google Scholar]
  42. Suckling DM, Kean JM, Stringer LD, Caceres-Barrios C, Hendrichs J, Reyes-Flores J, Dominiak BC. (2014) Eradication of tephritid fruit fly pest populations: outcomes and prospects. Pest Management Science. doi: 10.1002/ps.3905 [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Vargas RI, Stark JD, Nishida T. (1989) Abundance, distribution, and dispersion indices of the oriental fruit fly and melon fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) on Kauai, Hawaiian islands. Journal of Economic Entomology 82: 1609–1615. doi: 10.1093/jee/82.6.1609 [Google Scholar]
  44. Vayssières J-F. (1999) Les relations insectes-plantes chez les Dacini (Diptera Tephritidae) ravageurs des Cucurbitaceae à La Réunion. PhD thesis, University Paris XII-M.N.H.N., Paris, France.
  45. Vayssières J-F, Carel Y. (1998) Les Dacini (Diptera : Tephritidae) inféodées aux Cucurbitaceae à la Réunion : gamme de plantes hôtes et stades phénologiques préférentiels des fruits au moment de la piqûre pour des espèces cultivées, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France 35 (1999): 197–202.
  46. Vayssières J-F, Rey JY, Traoré L. (2007) Distribution and host plants of Bactrocera cucurbitae in West and Central Africa. Fruits 62: 391–396. doi: 10.1051/fruits:2007037 [Google Scholar]
  47. Vayssières J-F, Carel Y, Coubès M, Duyck PF. (2008) Development of immature stages and comparative demography of two cucurbit-attacking fruit flies in Reunion island: Bactrocera cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus. Environmental Entomology 37: 307–314. doi: 10.1093/ee/37.2.307 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Virgilio M, Delatte H, Backeljau T, De Meyer M. (2010) Macrogeographic population structuring in the cosmopolitan agricultural pest Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae). Molecular Ecology 19: 2713–2724. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04662.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Virgilio M, White I, De Meyer M. (2014) A set of multi-entry identification keys to African frugivorous flies (Diptera, Tephritidae). ZooKeys 428: 97–108. doi: 10.3897/zookeys.428.7366 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Virgilio M, Jordaens K, Verwimp C, White IM, De Meyer M. (2015) Higher phylogeny of frugivorous flies (Diptera, Tephritidae, Dacini): Localised partition conflicts and a novel generic classification, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2015.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed]
  51. White IM. (2006) Taxonomy of the Dacina (Diptera:Tephritidae) of Africa and the Middle East. African Entomology Memoir 2: 1–156. [Google Scholar]
  52. White IM, Elson-Harris MM. (1994) Fruit flies of economic significance: Their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, 601 pp. + addendum. [Google Scholar]
  53. White IM, De Meyer M, Stonehouse J. (2001) A review of the native and introduced fruit flies (Diptera, Tephritidae) in the Indian Ocean Islands of Mauritius, Réunion, Rodrigues and Seychelles. In: Price NS, Seewooruthun I. (Eds) Proceedings of the Indian Ocean Commission Regional Fruit Fly Symposium, Mauritius, 5–9th June 2000. Indian Ocean Commission, Mauritius, 15–21.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material 1

Genus Zeugodacus (Diptera, Tephritidae), list of valid species

This dataset is made available under the Open Database License (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/). The Open Database License (ODbL) is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use this Dataset while maintaining this same freedom for others, provided that the original source and author(s) are credited.

Marc De Meyer, Hélène Delatte, Maulid Mwatawala, Serge Quilici, Jean-François Vayssières, Massimiliano Virgilio

Data type: list of species

Explanation note: This list includes species listed under subgenera Asiadacus; Austrodacus; Diplodacus; Hemigymnodacus, comb. n.; Heminotodacus; Hemiparatridacus; Nesodacus; Niuginidacus; Papuodacus; Paradacus; Parasinodacus, comb. n.; Sinodacus; and Zeugodacus.

zookeys-540-539-s001.docx (33.7KB, docx)

Articles from ZooKeys are provided here courtesy of Pensoft Publishers

RESOURCES