Finger limes: non-host to B.

tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Determination of the Host Status of Australian Finger Limes (Citrus australasica (F. Muell.) Swingle; Rutaceae) to Queensland Fruit Fly (Bactrocera tryoni, Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) for Export

A.J. JESSUP, D. DANIELS, G. BALL and M. PEARSE New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Locked Bag 26, Gosford. New South Wales 2250. AUSTRALIA. andrew.jessup@dpi.nsw.gov.au

ABSTRACT Laboratory experiments were carried out based on a New Zealand Standard to test the host status of various cultivars of Australian finger limes (Citrus australasica, F. Muell.) grown in various districts to Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni, Froggatt. Tests on two of these cultivars were repeated over two production seasons. Under conditions somewhat more severe than those prescribed by the Standard these finger lime cultivars were not able to support the development of B. tryoni to the pupal stage. Tests on several cultivars and colour variations of the fruit and replication of experiments over time showed zero survival of B. tryoni. It is recommended that all cultivars and colours of Australian finger limes be classified as non-hosts to B. tryoni. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors are very grateful for the advice and assistance, including the supply of test material, kindly given to them by Sheryl Rennie, Australian Finger Lime Association, and Fred Durham, Australian Finger Lime Company. Their assistance has been invaluable in producing this report into the nonhost status of Australian finger limes to B. tryoni.

INTRODUCTION Nomenclature The Australian finger lime has been known as Microcitrus australasica (F. Muell.) Swingle but was revised into the genus Citrus (Mabberley 1998). History of experimental protocol The experiments described in this Report are based on the procedures set out by the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) in their Regulatory Authority Standard 155.02.02 - Specification for Determination of Fruit Fly Host Status as a Treatment. This protocol was written by Dr Jocelyn Cowley, Entomologist, New Zealand MAF Quality Management, with the assistance of Dr Richard Baker, Senior Entomologist, New Zealand MAF Quality Management and Ruth Frampton, National Advisor (Plant Pest Surveillance), New Zealand MAF Regulatory Authority, with reference to published articles by Dr Dick Drew, Senior Principal Scientist, Queensland Department of Primary Industries (Drew and Lloyd,

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

1989), and Dr Harry Fay, Entomologist, Queensland Department of Primary Industries (Fay, 1989). In November, 1991 the Draft Standard was circulated to Australian State Departments of Agriculture for comment by New Zealand MAF through the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. Concerns were raised by Australian disinfestation researchers about the applicability of extrapolating studies conducted under constrained field or laboratory conditions to conditions in the field. The New Zealanders considered that the proposed Standard, as it was, was the best approach for a system that was difficult to quantify. A modification of the New Zealand Standard was used by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries for access of several fruits from the former Asian Papaya Fruit Fly (Bactrocera papayae) quarantine area in Northern Queensland to other Australian States (Leach and Corcoran, 1996). The Standard was also applied for access for fresh produce from Pacific Island Nations to New Zealand (Heimoana et al., 1997). In addition modifications have been incorporated into the Draft Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission Regional Standard for Phytosanitary Measures No. 4 (APPPC RSPM No. 4): Guidelines for the Confirmation of Non-Host Status of Fruit and Vegetables to Tephritid Fruit Flies (Anon, 2005a) which is currently under review as a new International Standard for Phytosanitary Measures. The basis for non-host status Some fruits are not host to Tephritid fruit flies because of the existence of toxic chemicals in the fruit such as benzyl isothiocyanate in unripe papaya (Seo and Tang, 1982) or for physical reasons such as skin impenetrability (Armstrong et al., 1979; Armstrong and Vargas, 1982). In the laboratory Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni, Froggatt) can be forced to infest many fruit that would not be infested in the field. This is probably due to the presence of a high population pressure in the laboratory that is never experienced in the field (Jessup and McCarthy, 1993; Jessup et al., 1998). In fact B. tryoni eggs can hatch on damp filter paper and develop into adult fruit flies by surviving on larval carcasses and fungal growth (Jessup, unpublished data). An example of the problem of using constrained, or caged, insects to test the host status of fruits to fruit flies is illustrated by the case where the host status of hard, green bananas to papaya fruit fly was tested in Queensland. When the New Zealand Standard was followed using caged B. papayae on hard, green bananas, the fruit were demonstrably able to host this fruit fly spcies (Pinese, 1996). After extensive field studies of banana plantations, where B. papayae populations existed (i.e. had been trapped), involving fruit dissection, no hard, green bananas in sound condition were found to be infested with papaya fruit fly. This points to the fact that we do not really know what insect pressure fruit in the orchard will be under without some trapping data. We do not know if the insect pressure fruit is under in the conditions set by the New Zealand Standard bears any relationship to the pressure fruit would ever be likely to experience in the field. Reasons for this study Australian finger lime growers are interested in exporting their product interstate and overseas without the requirement for postharvest treatments against B. tryoni because

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

of the costs and the associated delay between harvest and resale. At present the only option, should Australian finger limes be exported to these areas from fruit-flyendemic areas, is that the fruit should be stored at 1C for 16 days (Anon., 2005b). Such a treatment is undesirable as it would affect the fruits shelf life and cause a delay between the time of harvest and when the consumer can purchase the fruit. This delay contravenes good marketing principles where product can be supplied at a moments notice to fill temporary market supply shortfalls. In addition to affecting marketing procedures, the cold disinfestation treatment ties up cold room space for up to 3 weeks, by the time the load of fruit reaches the target temperature of 1C. It is also costly in terms of power. The cold disinfestation treatment described above is required on all fruit fly host Australian produce because of the existence of B. tryoni in areas where the commodities are produced and the fact that it is absent from many desirable export markets (e.g. Melbourne, Adelaide, New Zealand, Japan and the USA). Anecdotal evidence from finger lime growing districts in Australia shows a complete lack of reports of B. tryoni found infesting finger limes. MATERIALS AND METHODS A series of experiments on the host status of finger limes to B. tryoni was carried out by scientists at New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Gosford. Host status experiments were conducted on the following finger limes cultivars: Exp. 1: Durhams Emerald (emerald green skin, green flesh) and Judys Everbearing (dark red skin, light green to light pink flesh) grown on the North Coast of NSW (May 2005) Mixed samples (colours) from orchards in Wongawallan and Burringbah (both in South East Queensland) and Possum Creekb (Northern NSW) (January 2006) Whian Green (green skin, green flesh), Alstonville (dark green skin, green flesh), JA (dark skin, green flesh) and Jali Red (dark red/green skin, green to deep pink flesh) grown on the North Coast of NSW (April 2006) A repeat of Experiment 1 but carried out in May 2006

Exp. 2:

Exp. 3:

Exp. 4:

Reasons for these variations Commercial Finger Lime production is an emerging industry so product volume is currently limited. Also there are many colours of finger lime available (although in relatively low production volumes). It was therefore not possible to obtain sufficient quantities of finger limes to carry out trials as per the New Zealand Standard all at one time. We decided to test for variation between varieties and production sites with the small number of fruit available. 3

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Experimental design These experiments were conducted as closely as possible following the requirements of the New Zealand Standard (Anon., 1994) given difficulties in supply of suitable volumes of product. Fruit flies were collected from a stock cage of B. tryoni which were 2 to 6 generations removed from wild B. tryoni collected from field-infested stonefruit in November and December of 2004 (for Tests conducted in 2005) and in November and December of 2005 (for Tests conducted in 2006). These flies were three weeks old from adult eclosion, protein fed and gravid. The authors did not carry out female fecundity trials as specified by the New Zealand Standard as fecundity was ably demonstrated by exposing Control fruits used in the experiments reported here to flies and rearing out surviving insects. The collection method was to allow flies to escape from their colony cage into a 6L plastic container with mesh lid through a 30 cm length of 5 cm poly pipe. After 10 to 20 minutes the container, now containing flies, was removed and the pipe sealed with a rubber bung. The container of flies was taken to a room set to 12C. Flies ceased flying under these conditions and were able to be segregated by sex and placed into petrie dishes using forceps. Female flies, in petrie dishes were placed into 250 x 250 x 450 mm wire framed cages (Test 1) or plastic tubs covered with fine (Drosophilaproof) cloth (see Figs 3 to 7) and the petrie lid removed. Flies were allowed access to protein, sugar and water. To ensure the flies were fecund control fruit, known to be favourable hosts to B. tryoni were exposed to test flies during the experiments. Control fruit and flies were housed in cages or tubs similar to those used for the treated fruit (finger limes) and flies. Flies were allowed to acclimate to test conditions overnight prior to commencement of the experiments. Apart from the Control cages / tubs half of these cages were for studies on the host status of intact fruit (termed non-punctured or not punctured in this report) and the other half were for studies on damaged (punctured) fruit. For each of the two treatments (punctured or non-punctured) up to five cages had finger limes and one (the Control) had a suitable host fruit (see Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 for the experimental set up and numbers of cages used). Two samples of finger limes, one for the non-punctured fruit treatment and one for the punctured fruit treatment were prepared. For each treatment, fruit were equilibrated to 26C (optimal survival temperature for B. tryoni) then divided into up to replicates depending on fruit numbers received from suppliers. Fruit for each replicate were placed in a single layer on a shallow tray (300 x 200 x 23 mm). For the punctured treatment, each fruit was punctured, on the its exposed surface, a total of 5 times / fruit with a No. 5 entomological pin. Fruit for the non-punctured treatment were not wounded. Control fruit, in separate cages / tubs, were placed on a shallow tray and each was punctured 5 times.

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Fruit were exposed to the flies for 48 h at 26C, 50% R.H. and 12 h light : 12 h dark. After 48 h fruit were removed from the flies and placed on damp vermiculite (pupation medium) in a 1 L plastic container covered with fine mesh terylene (Fig. 8). Each replicate and the Control were separately boxed and covered and all were placed at 26C for 14 days. After 14 days vermiculite was removed and new vermiculite placed under the fruit and returned to 26C for a further 3 days. All vermiculite was then sieved and any surviving pupae recovered and counted. Remaining fruit were dissected and any live larvae / pupae were collected and counted. The 48 h exposure used in these experiments is twice that stipulated by the New Zealand standard. The authors considered that a severe fruit fly pressure such as this would counter any variance from the Standard in the numbers of fruit tested. Fruit weights were recorded to satisfy the Standards requirement that there should be no more than 1 insect is potentially treated per gram of treated-fruit weight. This is calculated from the number of survivors per gram weight of Control fruit and the number of flies exposed to that fruit. RESULTS Assessment of female fecundity The females used in all trials were demonstrably fecund as evidenced by the numbers of insects surviving in the Control fruit tested. Tables 1, 2, 7, 12 and the summary (Table 13) show that flies were able to lay their eggs into these fruit and that their eggs hatched and larvae survived to pupation. Flies were sufficiently fecund to infest cherries at a rate of 6.9 survivors / fruit. Cherries weighed about 10g each so there were less than 1 survivors / gram weight of fruit as required by the Standard. Cumquats hosted flies at a rate of 10.85 survivors / fruit and the figure for nectarines was 90.5 survivors / fruit. Cumquats weighed about 16g each so there were less than 1 survivors / gram weight of fruit as required by the Standard. Survival of Queensland fruit fly in Australian finger limes Tables 1, 2, 6, 11 and the summary (Table 13) show that no B. tryoni survived to pupation after finger limes were exposed to gravid females for 48 h. When 193 finger limes of different cultivars, from different orchards and over two seasons were either damaged (a total weight of 2.9 kg) or not damaged (a total weight of 2.7 kg) based on the New Zealand Standard (New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) Regulatory Authority Standard 155.02.02 - Specification for Determination of Fruit Fly Host Status as a Treatment) there was zero survival of B. tryoni.

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

CONCLUSION The authors of this report conclude that Australian finger limes are not a host to Bactrocera tryoni, Froggatt (Queensland fruit fly). Tests on several cultivars and colour variations of the fruit and replication over time showed zero survival of B. tryoni. Also fruit were exposed to B. tryoni for 48 h instead of the 24 h stipulated in the New Zealand Standard. Data presented in this report support the submission that all cultivars and colours of Citrus australasica (F. Muell.) (Australian finger limes) be classified as non hosts to B. tryoni.

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Test 1. Fruit exposed to B. tryoni for 48 hours (May, 2005) Table 1. Experimental set up and results for Test 1 Not punctured Fruit (rep) Cumquats (Control) Cultivar Durhams Emerald Cultivar Judy's Everbearing Punctured Fruit (rep) Cumquats (Control) Cultivar Durhams Emerald Cultivar Judy's Everbearing Replicate C2 1 1 No. of fruit in cage 10 8 10 Weight of fruit (g) 161 130 139 No. surviving insects (pupae) 112 0 0 Replicate C1 1 1 No. of fruit in cage 10 8 10 Weight of fruit (g) 152 116 119 No. surviving insects (pupae) 105 0 0

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Test 2. Fruit exposed to B. tryoni for 48 hours (January 2006) Table 2. Experimental set up and results for Test 2 Not punctured No. of fruit in cage 9 4 7 13 No. of flies in cage 18 8 14 26 Weight of fruit (g) 91.1 89.4 96.3 218.2 No. surviving insects (pupae) 41 0 0 0

Fruit (rep) Cherries (Control) Finger limes from Burringbah Finger limes from Possum Creek Finger limes from Wongawallan Punctured

Replicate C1 1 2 3

Fruit (rep) Cherries (Control) Finger limes from Burringbah Finger limes from Possum Creek Finger limes from Wongawallan

Replicate C2 1 2 3

No. of fruit in cage 9 4 7 13

No. of flies in cage 18 8 14 26

Weight of fruit (g) 92.0 82.2 101.8 209.3

No. surviving insects (pupae) 83 0 0 0

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Test 3. Fruit exposed to B. tryoni for 48 hours (April, 2006) Table 3. Experimental set up for Test 3. Number of fruit per cage Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured Alstonville Whian Green JA Jali Red 7 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 6 3 5 5 6 3 5 5 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 6

Table 4. Experimental set up for Test 3. Weight of fruit per cage Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured Alstonville Whian Green JA Jali Red 124.5 79.1 94.7 100.2 96.3 70.1 91.5 101.9 64.5 69.6 91.3 98.3 73.3 58.7 86.1 101.2 82.2 62.5 90.2 82.6 106.4 61.1 85.5 87.9 72.5 75.8 92.3 98.3 69.2 70.5 91.2 95.3 75.2 72.4 90.5 95.3 70.6 72.8 92.6 98.1

Room temperature was maintained at 24C to 27C.

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Table 5. Experimental set up for Test 3. Number and weight of Arctic Snow nectarines (Controls) per replicate cage Rep 1 Weight 119.8 117.5 110.8 Rep 2 Weight 113.3 119.7 110.1 Rep 3 Weight 110.7 119.9 117.4 Rep 4 Weight 119.8 117.5 110.8 Rep 5 Weight 113.3 119.7 110.1

Fruit #1 Fruit #2 Fruit #3

No. 1 1 1

No. 1 1 1

No. 1 1 1

No. 1 1 1

No. 1 1 1

Table 6. Results for Test 3. Number of larvae / pupae from sieving of the FINGER LIME treatments Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured Alstonville Whian Green JA Jali Red 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 7. Results for Test 3. Number of larvae / pupae from sieving of the CONTROLS Rep 1 No. fruit No. pupae 3 452 Rep 2 No. fruit No. pupae 3 223 Rep 3 No. fruit No. pupae 3 426 Rep 4 No. fruit No. pupae 3 411 Rep 5 No. fruit No. pupae 3 342

10

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Test 4. Fruit exposed to B. tryoni for 48 hours (May 2006) Table 8. Experimental set up for Test 4. Number of fruit per cage Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured Durhams Emerald Judys Everbearing 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Table 9. Experimental set up for Test 4. Weight of fruit per cage Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured Durhams Emerald Judys Everbearing 62.1 55.6 64.8 54.5 47.8 61.9 50.2 57.7 51.4 59.1 50.8 54.8 52.3 60.0 64.0 54.3 51.9 62.0 59.3 55.5

Room temperature was maintained at 24C to 27C.

11

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Table 10. Experimental set up for Test 4. Number and weight of Arctic Snow nectarines (Controls) per replicate cage Control 1 DE Punctured No. 1 1 1 Weight 111.7 115.4 113.6 Control 2 DE Not Punctured No. Weight 1 115.1 1 108.9 1 111.2 Control 1 JE Punctured No. 1 1 1 Weight 108.5 111.7 110.7 Control 2 JE Not Punctured No. 1 1 1 Weight 115.6 112.9 109.7

Fruit #1 Fruit #2 Fruit #3

Table 11. Results for Test 4. Number of larvae / pupae from sieving of the FINGER LIME treatments Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3 Rep 4 Rep 5 Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not Punctured Not punctured punctured punctured punctured punctured Durhams Emerald Judys Everbearing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 12. Results for Test 4. Number of larvae / pupae from sieving of the CONTROLS Control 1 (DE Punctured) No. fruit No. pupae 3 146 Control 2 (DE Not Punctured) No. fruit No. pupae 3 125 Control 1 (JE Punctured) No. fruit No. pupae 3 158 Control 2 (JE Not Punctured) No. fruit No. pupae 3 161

12

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Table 13. Summary table of survival of B. tryoni in finger limes Total no. of fruit exposed to flies 193 193 20 18 27 Total weight (g) of fruit Total no. of flies infesting fruit exposed to flies surviving to pupation 2700 0 2941 0 313 217 183 124 3075 2444 Ave. no. of survivors per fruit 0 0 10.85 6.9 90.5

Finger limes Not punctured Finger limes - Punctured Control Cumquats Control Cherries Control - Nectarines

13

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Fig. 1 Variations in colours of Australian finger limes (photo obtained from http://www.fingerlimes.com/aboutus.htm ). NB Round fruit in the
photo above are of another Citrus sp not tested in this report.

Fig. 2 Female B. tryoni (Queensland fruit fly) attempting to lay her eggs into a punctured Australian finger lime

14

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Fig. 3 Wire cages used in Test 1 showing finger limes, food and water.

Fig. 4 Lidded plastic tubs used in Tests 2, 3 and 4 showing Control fruit (nectarines).

Fig. 5 Finger limes were punctured 5 times each fruit with a No. 5 ento pin (white-marked fruit below) or not punctured at all (fruit at the top of the photo) and exposed to female flies. Flies were allowed ad libitum access to water, sugar and protein.

15

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

Fig. 6 Control fruit, in Tests 2, 3 and 4 (nectarines) were punctured 5 times each fruit with a No. 5 ento pin and exposed to female flies. Flies were allowed ad libitum access to water, sugar and protein.

Fig. 7 Gravid flies were collected and placed into petrie dishes and released into cages or tubs with test or Control fruit. Fruit were exposed to flies for 48 h at 26C and 12 h light : 12 h dark.

Fig. 8 After exposure to flies the fruit were placed into 1 L tubs with damp vermiculite (pupation medium) and stored at 26C for 2 weeks. After that the fruit were dissected and the vermiculite sieved and examined for surviving larvae or pupae.

16

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

REFERENCES ANON. (1994). New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) Regulatory Authority Standard 155.02.02 - Specification for Determination of Fruit Fly Host Status as a Treatment. MAF Regulatory Authority, Wellington, New Zealand. ANON. (2005a). Draft APPPC RSPM No. 4 Regional Standards for Phytosanitary Measures. Guidelines for the Confirmation of Non-Host Status of Fruit and Vegetables to Tephritid Fruit Flies. Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission. 14-16 Feb. 2005 Bangkok, Thailand ANON. (2005b). Interstate Certification Assurance (ICA) 07 Cold Treatment Disinfestation for Fruit Fly. Domestic Market Assess and Quarantine Working Group in each State Government of Australia. ARMSTRONG, J. W. and VARGAS, R. I. (1982). Resistance of pineapple variety '59-656' to field populations of oriental fruit flies and melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 75: 781-782. ARMSTRONG, J.W., VRIESENGA, J.D. and LEE, C.Y.L. (1979). Resistance of pineapple varieties D-10 and D-20 to field populations of oriental fruit flies and melon flies. Journal of Economic Entomology. 72: 6-7. COWLEY, J. M., BAKER, R. T. and HARTE, D. S. (1992). Definition and determination of host status for multivoltine fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) species. Journal of Economic Entomology. 85(2): 312-317. DREW, R.A.I. and LLOYD, A.C. (1989). Bacteria associated with Fruit Flies and their Host Plants, pp. 131-140. In: Robinson, A. S.; Hooper, G. Fruit Flies Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Volume 3A, World Crop Pests. Elsevier Science Publishers, Netherlands. FAY, H.A.C. (1989). Multi-host Species of Fruit Fly, pp. 129-140. In: Robinson, A.S.; Hooper, G. Fruit Flies Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Volume 3B, World Crop Pests. Elsevier Science Publishers, Netherlands. HEIMOANA, V., LEWENIQUILA, L., TAU, D., TUNUPOPO, F., NEMEYE, P., KASSIM, A., QUASHIE-WILLIAMS, C., ALLWOOD, A. and LEBLANC, L. (1997). Non-host status as a quarantine treatment option for fruit flies. In Allwood, A. and Drew, R.A.I. (eds.) Management of Fruit Flies in the Pacific. ACIAR Proceedings No 76. 267 pp. JESSUP, A. J. and MCCARTHY, D. (1993). Host status of some Australian-grown cucurbits to Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) under laboratory conditions. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society. 32: 97-98. JESSUP, A. J., DALTON, S. P. and Sloggett, R. F. (1998). Determination of host status of table grapes to Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) for export to New Zealand. General and Applied Entomology. 28: 73-75.

17

Finger limes: non-host to B. tryoni AJ Jessup September 2006

LEACH, P. L. and CORCORAN, R. J. (1996). Determination of susceptibility of various fruits [Rambutan, Pumpkin cultivars, Watermelon, Rosella, Lychee, Tahitian Lime, Angled Loofah] to infestation by papaya fruit fly, Bactrocera papayae Drew and Hancock (Diptera: Tephritidae). Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Internal reports prepared for the consideration of the Interstate Plant Health Regulatory Working Group, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. MABBERLEY, D. (1998). Australian Citreae with notes on other Aurantioideae (Rutaceae), Telopea 7(4): 333-344. PINESE, B. and DE FAVERI, S. (1996). Report on the study to determine the host status of Cavendish bananas to fruit flies in North Queensland with particular reference to Bactrocera papayae. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Mareeba. March, 1996. 21pp. SEO, S. T. and TANG, C. S. (1982). Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): toxicity of benzyl isothiocyanate against eggs or 1st instars of three species. Journal of Economic Entomology 75: 1132-1135.

18