International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(8), pp. 188-194, 2013 Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.

com/ijsres ISSN: 2322-4983; 2013 IJSRPUB http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsres-2013-p188-194

Full Length Research Paper Host Preference and Performance of Fruit Flies Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) For Various Fruits and Vegetables
Muhammad Sarwar*, Muhammad Hamed, Bilal Rasool, Muhammad Yousaf, Mureed Hussain
Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), Faisalabad, Pakistan; *Corresponding Author: E-mail: drmsarwar64@yahoo.com
Received 15 May 2013; Accepted 16 June 2013

Abstract. The fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) are polyphagous insect pests, therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of different host species on their preference and offspring performance. Host choice experiments were done for fruit flies Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) by using different fruits and vegetables. Host preference for oviposition was determined by incubating fruits and vegetables to natural infestations by Bactrocera in the field, and their larvae reared and adults maintained in the laboratory. Comparative host preference of the B. zonata fruit fly was studied on mango, peach and apple fruits in field experiments. The mango was recorded as most preferred host followed by peach and apple, due to the maximum number of pupae formed (173.17), pupae weight (6.40 mg) obtained and emergence of adult fruit flies (84.53%). The vegetables, bitter gourd, brinjal, muskmelon and pumpkin were tested for the relative host preference of fruit fly B. cucurbitae. The bitter gourd was found as most preferred host demonstrating the maximum pupae formation (134.08), pupae weight obtained (4.91 mg) and percent adult emergence (82.64%) of fruit flies. Brinjal was observed as moderately preferred host, while, muskmelon and pumpkin were sorted out as least preferred hosts. These results provide experimental support that flies can respond differently to the host experienced in the field and the hosts that are of advantageous to the pests may be more adapted. Results further imply that host preference of fruit flies can shift towards suitable hosts and if hosts which provide a proper breeding situation become scarce then alternative hosts are accepted. These findings confirm that the host choice and preference of the fruit flies have the impacts on both pre-harvest and postharvest countermeasures of horticultural crops. Key words: Host preference, Oviposition, Fruit fly, Bactrocera, Fruit, Cucurbits

1. INTRODUCION Tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) are the most devastating insect pests having a foremost influence on global agricultural products, effecting yield losses, and dropping the value and marketability of horticultural crops. In addition, tephritid fruit flies are amongst the mainly persistent pest species of fruits and vegetables in the world causing direct and indirect economic fatalities due to their injury (Sarwar, 2006 a). The genus Bactrocera is considered a serious threat of horticultural crops because of the wide host range of its species and the invasive power of some species within the genus (Clarke et al., 2005). Several Bactrocera species have been established outside of their native Asian range. Fruit flies are also serious pests in Pakistan, causing losses at the farm level, and with added losses to traders, retailers and exporters. Small farmers suffer in particular, being the growers of the highly susceptible items and unable to afford enough protection measures. Losses without control have been estimated as 21% of fruits and 24% of cucurbits in Pakistan (Stonehouse et al., 1998).

The two polyphagous fruit flies currently mainly established in different regions of Pakistan include, peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and cucurbit fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett), which are the most dangerous and widespread pest species throughout the country. In Pakistan, fruit fly B. zonata is abundant in coastal and sub-coastal areas of Baluchistan and Sindh, and in semi-desert areas and northern plains of Punjab. However, it has also been recorded as rare pest from foot hills of Islamabad and Peshawar valley of North Western Frontier Province (Marwat et al., 1992; Sarwar, 2006 b). This fruit fly is native to tropical Asia and has been found in numerous tropical countries of Asia (White and Helson-Harris, 1992). Cucurbit fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett), is one of the most important pests of cucurbits, and squash (Cucurbita pepo L.) is highly prone to damage by this pest (Sapkota et al., 2010). So, fruit flies produce extensive damage to fruits and vegetables and losses can reach too many folds under serious attack if control measures are not taken timely. Host- performance in herbivorous insects has been demonstrated in numerous studies, however host

188

Sarwar et al. Host Preference of Fruit Flies Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) For Various Fruits and Vegetables

preference may vary and change in it might have been the critical requirement to initiate the host shifting. Host-specific insects are estimated to represent 2540% of all animal species (Bush and Butlin, 2004). The Bactrocera group of fruit flies under consideration in this manuscript is attracted to a broad variety of hosts. Some fruit flies prefer only one or two host species, or specialize on one group of hosts, while others are generalists and infest as many as 31 host species grown commercially (White and ElsonHarris, 1992). Female adult fruit flies are known to make decisions about into which fruit to oviposit based on the suitability of the fruit for their offsprings performance (Joachim-Bravo et al., 2001; Fontellas-Brandalha and Zucoloto, 2004). Muthuthantri and Clarke (2012) investigated oviposition preference and offspring performance of the polyphagous fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) in citrus as host based on choice and no-choice experiments in laboratory studies. These findings demonstrated an oviposition preference hierarchy of B. tryoni among the citrus fruits host tested. These findings provide evidence for possible role of adult preference for host which plays a most important function in differential response for oviposition. The objectives of the present studies/ experiments are to determine whether fruit flies have food preferences if given the choice to choose between food sources. Such hosts assessment data could give important information regarding assurance on the presence or absence of economically significance species of fruit fly that already exist in the locality. This balance approach for host preference surveillance can also help in sampling fruit flies species that are not attracted to different male lures. 2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 2.1. Host choice and adult oviposition preference experiments Host choice experiments were done at the PostGraduate Agriculture Research Station (PARS), Jhang Road, a model farm belonging to University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The experiments were organized specially for flies Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) by using different fruits and vegetables. The experiments consisted of eight different treatments including untreated control, and there were three replications of each treatment. The food sources that were used for the experiments included the fruits Mango (Mangifera indica), Peach (Prunus persica) and Apple (Mauls domestice); and vegetables Bitter gourd (Momordica charantia), Brinjal (Solanum melongena), Muskmelon (Cucumis

melo) and Pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo). These hosts were provided as food, mating sites and egg laying spots for the adults, in addition to provide the food for the emerging larvae. Healthy, undamaged, mature and ripe fruits and vegetables were collected from the local marketplace, stored in paper bags and labeled with relevant information. A total of 500 g of fruits and vegetables from each sample were divided into four replications (three replicates to be used in field and one the control to keep in laboratory). The current information on food preferences of fruit flies was based on field and laboratory observations accomplished at fortnightly intervals and conducted thrice. This methodology involved a basket-like structure that was built using sieves which contained fruits and vegetables in its bottom, and other end tied with a string and attached to the tree in triplicate. These field experiments were arranged by adopting randomized complete block design in guava orchard while it was not bearing fruits and each guava field spaced at 50 m apart. The host samples were normally exposed to the flies for oviposition after attaching to the trees for a period of 48 h and afterward they were removed to shift in the laboratory. 2.2. Offspring performance experiments Food traps (oviposited fruits and vegetables) in field were emptied, placed individually in separate plastic containers and transferred to laboratory. The plastic containers were covered with muslin cloth and tightly secured with masking tape to prevent escape or entry of any other small flies. The impacts of pest fruit flies on selected and field placed commercial or edible fruits and cucurbits were assessed by incubating them over moist sand in containers for 2-3 weeks in laboratory to find out whether flies emerged or not from the host samples. Ten to twelve days after incubation, host samples were checked by cutting and opening them to make sure that all larvae had left the hosts and then sieved the sand with a strainer to isolate puparia from substrate. The data on the number of puparia and pupae weight (mg) from each host sample were recorded and puparia placed in a Petri dish over a tissue paper lined on the floor of the dish and covered with moistened sand. Petri dishes were positioned in a small plastic containers with top roofed with muslin cloth for ventilation. The mature larvae exited from oviposited fruits and vegetables and pupated in the sand. The data on numbers of adult flies (male and female collectively) emerging from the puparia were recorded and these kept alive for about 3 days by giving them sugar and moistened cotton for species identification on the basis of diagnostic morphological features. The end

189

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(8), pp. 188-194, 2013

effects of host and nutrition were measured in terms of average number of pupae formed, pupa weight, number of adults emerged and percent emergence of fruit flies. The percent emergences of flies were calculated from number of emerged adults from 100 pupae of each kind of hosts in all commodities. A check replicate lot from the local marketplace collected samples was also kept in laboratory to find out whether the fruit or vegetable samples were already attacked by flies in field. The check host samples were incubated over finely sieved moist sand in separate containers for at least two weeks to observe any earlier pest invasion or to find out whether flies emerge or not from the host samples. 2.3. Statistical analysis The data attained on the hosts attacked by fly species with variable levels of infestations (number of fruit fly larvae infesting individual host) in all commodities were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Statistix 8.1 statistical package. The treatment means were evaluated using Least Significant Differences (LSD) Test at P= 0.05 probability level. 3. RESULTS Two fruit fly species (Diptera: Tephritidae) were bred from marketable or edible host fruits and vegetables from experimental site. The peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (wing pattern

comprises only a small dark spot near the wing tip and two lateral longitudinal yellow bands on dorsal side of thorax) was recorded in fruit samples. While, from vegetables, cucurbit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (large black spot at wing tip and black cross streak on the wing; a median and two lateral longitudinal yellow bands on dorsal side of thorax) was recorded. The results obtained from both experiments conducted on the feeding preference of fruit flies are presented in Tables 1 and 2. The numbers of pupae and adults obtained from mango host exposed to B. zonata revealed that maximum records of 173.17 pupae and 146.42 adults were recovered from the progeny of flies. It was significantly followed by 15.42 and 9.92 pupae and 12.50 and 7.42 adults in case of peach and apple hosts, respectively as compared with mango fed flies. The emergence of fruit fly B. zonata adults fed continuously on mango revealed that it was 84.53 percent which peaked than other hosts. The flies fed on peach showed 81.09 percent emergence during the respective feeding periods and on apple it was 75.06 percent. There was almost significant emergence in fruit fly adults in all host samples. Pupal weight of fruit flies which were obtained from mango host was more (6.40 mg) than flies which were captured from peach and apple hosts (6.30 and 6.10 mg, respectively). All these values were significantly different from each other with reference to hosts involved (Table 1).

Table 1: Effects of various fruit hosts on the preference and growth of fruit fly Bactrocera zonata.
S. Fruit host Pupae formed Pupa weight Adults Percent emergence No. (mg) emerged 1 Mango Mangifera indica 173.17 a 6.40 a 146.42 a 84.53 a 2 Peach Prunus persica 15.42 b 6.30 b 12.50 b 81.09 b 3 Apple Mauls domestic 9.92 b 6.10 c 7.42 b 75.06 c S. Error 4.775 0.014 4.361 0.756 LSD Value 13.259 0.040 12.108 2.100 Means followed by the same letter in each column for each main effect are not significantly different according to LSD at P= 0.05.

Table 2: Effects of various vegetable hosts on preference and growth of fruit fly Bactrocera cucurbitae.
S. Vegetable host Pupae Pupa weight Adults No. formed (mg) emerged 1 Bitter gourd Momordica charantia 134.08 a 4.91 a 110.83 a 2 Brinjal Solanum melongena 8.25 b 4.81 b 6.08 b 3 Muskmelon Cucumis melo 3.83 b 4.72 c 2.42 b 4 Pumpkin Cucurbita pepo 3.83 b 4.62 d 2.17 b S. Error 3.059 0.014 3.408 LSD Value 7.485 0.036 8.340 Values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at the 5% probability level. Percent emergence 82.64 a 73.75 b 67.18 c 56.43 d 2.464 6.030

The maximum numbers of 134.08 pupae formed were recovered from the B. cucurbitae flies fed on bitter gourd diet followed by 8.25, 3.83 and 3.83 pupae in case of brinjal, muskmelon and

pumpkin, respectively. The pupal weight was significantly elevated from bitter gourd exposed flies (4.91 mg) as compared with those from brinjal, muskmelon and pumpkin (4.81, 4.72 and 4.62 mg,

190

Sarwar et al. Host Preference of Fruit Flies Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) For Various Fruits and Vegetables

respectively). The progeny of 110.83 adults were obtained from the pupae of flies fed on bitter gourd which was significantly higher than brinjal, muskmelon and pumpkin (6.08, 2.42 and 2.17, respectively). Maximum inhibition of 56.43 percent in emergence was observed in the progeny of flies fed on pumpkin followed by 67.18, 73.75 and 82.64 in case of muskmelon, brinjal and bitter gourd, respectively. It revealed that effects of the diets fed by flies progeny were evident as the values of different parameters were considerably different from each other (Table 2). Lastly, the containers of fruit and vegetable samples placed in laboratory as check had shown nothing emerged from these indicating no any prior pest invasions in the tested hosts. 4. DISCUSSIONS The preferences of fruit flies for seven hosts were tested using field experiments. Some hosts enhanced fruit flies development more than the other tested hosts. A pronounced effect of hosts was noticed on different development and population growth statistics of individual fly. Fruit flies B. zonata and B. cucurbitae preferred mango and bitter gourd, respectively, for adult feeding, oviposition and immature feeding. The results showed that B. zonata and B. cucurbitae adults were attracted by the odors of the hosts. The order of preference was mango> peach> apple fruits for B. zonata, while, bitter gourd> brinjal> muskmelon> pumpkin vegetables in case of B. cucurbitae. Preference was extremely significant between mango and the other two fruit hosts, and between bitter gourd and the other three vegetable hosts. There was no significant difference in pests preference for peach and apple or between brinjal, muskmelon and pumpkin in case of pupae and adults formations. The current experimentation implies that all the three natural fruits hosts can be used by B. zonata; and B. cucurbitae might utilize four vegetable hosts depending upon their availability; however, the quality of host came out to have a key role on progeny development of particular species of fly concerned. Hence, host species and quality both affect adult behavior as well as immature instars development of fruit fly. Based on pupae and adults obtained, the present experiments suggested that the use of natural hosts by both B. cucurbitae and B. zonata can depend on host availability, but the host quality seems to have major impact on larval development of particular species. Parallel to the current findings, Rajpoot et al., (2002), tested cucurbits for the relative population and host preference of fruit fly (B. dorsalis), and categorized those as most preferred, moderately preferred and

least preferred hosts. Analogous to the present findings, a study by Fitt (1986) also noted that the abundance of species on different hosts was due to more the choices made by females than to larval specialization. However, while many host plants can sustain the full development of different tephritid species, host quality can manage most important differences in survival rate and larval specialization. Consistent with present results, there is link known between adult oviposition preference and offspring performance by B. dorsalis fruit fly. There is possibility that there may be differences in the ability of wild flies to penetrate a host for oviposition, survival of larvae, development times and ability to pupate in comparison to other samples (Rattanapun et al., 2009). The relationship between host preference and the offspring performance measures showed strong support for the preference- performance hypothesis, which stated that female insects will evolve to oviposit on hosts on which their offspring fare best (Akol et al., 2013). The failure of few hosts to attract flies than others in this study to a greater extent is easier to explain on the basis of data available in literature. Insects use their taste system to glean important information about the quality and nutritive value of food sources. The flies use receptors in their sensory organs to find food from a distance. Taste becomes important only after the fly makes physical contact with food. A fly first locates food sources using its odor receptors which are crucial for its long-range attraction to food. Then, after landing on food, the fly uses its taste system to sample the food for suitability in terms of nutrition and toxicity (Wisotsky et al., 2011). Adult female fruit flies find and assess larval hosts using olfactory, visual and contact cues such as the color, size, shape and smell of host fruit, and all these factors influence a female fruit flys response (Drew et al., 2003; Brevault and Quilici, 2007; Mahfuza et al., 2011). In consistent with other tephritid studies, preliminary experiments have shown that flies have adapted behaviorally to the phenology of host plants. However, adaptations to different host-plant phenologies and host plant physiology may be required (Feder et al., 1997). Plants that differ in the amount of secondary metabolites (Roitberg and Isman, 1992) and nutritional value can result in reduced growth and survival of the feeding larvae (Haggstrom and Larsson, 1995). After performing trials, the variations in average number of pupae formed, pupa weight (mg), adults emerged and percent emergence of fruit flies were found. The mango was found as most preferred host tested to B. zonata fly followed by peach and apple. Thus, nutritional contents of a diet can considerably affect developmental time, growth and survival of fruit fly

191

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(8), pp. 188-194, 2013

larvae. The most favorite host to B. cucurbitae fly was bitter gourd followed by brinjal, muskmelon and finally pumpkin. So, under field conditions the results of this study showed that muskmelon and pumpkin are not as attractive hosts to the adults of the B. cucurbitae fly as brinjal even though these are known to contain carbohydrates and amino acids. Furthermore, bitter gourd has been reported to be attractive to the adults of melon tephritid flies. The failure of few hosts to attract flies to a greater extent than other in that study might be due to their cuticle that proved less preferable substrate for oviposition (Feng-Ming, 1997). . 5. CONCLUSION In conclusion, these findings have provided evidence that each fly species has a range of hosts preference and numbers of attacked hosts by them. The results based on fruit flies being more attracted to mango fruit and bitter gourd vegetable than other food sources have been supported significantly enough to show their food favoritism. There appears relationship between attractiveness and nutritive value as measured by the different parameters of offspring development. Thus, ingestion of mango and bitter gourd could have supplied the necessary nutrients and contained sufficient essential constituents necessary for progeny development. It is possible that the total amounts of available nutrients per fly perhaps are not sufficient in other hosts and their failure to attract the flies resulted. In the light of these findings, it is of interest to comment on the results obtained that retard of speedy immature growth may be due to differences in the nutrients composition of the kind of host resulting in differences in preference of fly species. Based on these field findings, a lot of marketable fruits and vegetables varieties appearing to be poor hosts for fruit flies might create a low post-harvest and quarantine risks. REFERENCES Akol AM, Masembe C, Isabirye BE, Kukiriza CK, Rwomushana I (2013). Oviposition Preference and Offspring Performance in Phytophagous Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): The African Invader, Bactrocera invadens. International Research Journal of Horticulture, 1 (1): 1-14. Brevault T, Quilici S (2007). Influence of habitat pattern on orientation during host fruit location in the tomato fruit fly, Neoceratitis cyanescens. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 97: 637642. Bush GL, Butlin RK (2004). Sympatric speciation in insects. In: Dieckmann U, Doebeli M, Metz

JAJ, Tautz D, editors. Adaptive Speciation, pp. 229-248. Cambridge University Press. Clarke AR, Armstrong KF, Carmichael AE, Milne JR, Raghu S, Roderick GK, Yeates DK (2005). Invasive phytophagous pests arising through a recent tropical evolutionary radiation: the Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 50: 293-319. Drew RAI, Prokopy RJ, Romig MC (2003). Attraction of fruit flies of the genus Bactrocera to colored mimics of host fruit. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 107: 39-45. Feder JL, Stolz U, Lewis KM, Perry W, Roethele JB, Rogers A (1997). The effects of winter length on the genetics of apple and hawthorn races of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae). Evolution, 51: 1862-1876. Feng-Ming L (1997). Ovipositional Preference of Melon Fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae Coquillett (Diptera: Tephritidae) (I) Tests of Host Plant and Color. Chinese J. Entomol., 17: 237-243. Stonehouse JM, Mumford JD, Mustafa G (1998). Economic losses to tephritid fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Pakistan. Crop Protection, 17 (2): 159-164. Fitt G (1986). The roles of adult and larval specializations in limiting the occurrence of five species of Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in cultivated fruits. Oecologia, 69: 101-109. Fontellas-Brandalha TML, Zucoloto FS (2004). Selection of oviposition sites by wild Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on the nutritional composition. Neotropical Entomology, 33: 557562. Haggstrom H, Larsson S (1995). Slow larval growth on a suboptimal willow results in high predation mortality in the leaf beetle Galerucella lineola. Oecologia, 104: 308-315. Joachim-Bravo IS, Fernandes OA, De-Bortoli SA, Zucoloto FS (2001). Oviposition behavior of Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann (Diptera: Tephritidae): Association between oviposition preference and larval performance in individual females. Neotropical Entomology, 30: 559-564. Mahfuza K, Tahira BR, Howlader J (2011). Comparative Host Susceptibility, Oviposition, and Colour Preference of Two Polyphagous Tephritids: Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coq.) and Bactrocera tau (Walker). Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 7 (3): 343349. Marwat NK, Hussain N, Khan A (1992). Suppression of population and infestation of Dacus spp. by male annihilation in guava orchard. Pakistan J. Zoology, 24 (1): 82-84.

192

Sarwar et al. Host Preference of Fruit Flies Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) For Various Fruits and Vegetables

Muthuthantri S, Clarke AR (2012). Five commercial citrus rate poorly as hosts of the polyphagous fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in laboratory studies. Australian Journal of Entomology, 51 (4): 289-298. Rajpoot SKS, Ali S, Rizvi SMA (2002). Relative Population and Host Preference of Fruit Fly Bactrocera dorsalis on Cucurbits. Annals of Plant Protection Sciences, 10 (1): 62-64. Rattanapun W, Weerawan A, Clarke AR (2009). Bactrocera dorsalis Preference for and performance on two mango varieties at three stages of ripeness. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 131: 243-253. Roitberg BD, Isman MB (1992). Insect Chemical Ecology. An Evolutionary Approach. Chapman and Hall. 359 p.

Sapkota R, Dahal KC, Thapa RB (2010). Damage assessment and management of cucurbit fruit flies in spring-summer squash. Journal of Entomology and Nematology, 2 (1): 7-12. Sarwar M (2006 a). Occurrence of Insect Pests on Guava (Psidium guajava) Tree. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 38 (3): 197- 200. Sarwar M (2006 b). Management of Guava (Psidium guajava) Orchard against Insect Pests. Economic Review, 8/9 (XXXVIII): 28-30. White IM, Elson-Harris M (1992). Fruit Flies of Economic Importance: Their Identification and Bionomics. CAB International, Oxon, UK. 601 p. Wisotsky Z, Medina A, Freeman E, Dahanukar A (2011). Evolutionary differences in food preference rely on Gr 64e, a receptor for glycerol. Nature Neuroscience, 14: 1534-1541.

193

International Journal of Scientific Research in Environmental Sciences (IJSRES), 1(8), pp. 188-194, 2013

I, Dr. Muhammad Sarwar, started service career as Agricultural Officer (Plant Protection) from 16. 05. 1991 to 31. 05. 2001, Directorate of Pest Warning & Quality Control of Pesticides, Department of Agriculture, Punjab, which was exclusively deployed on research work for better crop protection. Specialized in the field of Entomology (Insects) and Acarology (Mites) and significantly contributed in the field of crop protection. Worked on vertebrate pests management especially controls of rodents in field crops and storage. Explored, hitherto the unexplored 36 species of stored grain & stored products mites, which were new additions to Acarology, by conducting extensive survey of different localities in Pakistan & Azad Kashmir. These species were belonging to 8 genera viz., Forcellinia, Lackerbaueria, Acotyledon, Caloglyphus and Troupeauia of family Acaridae; Capronomoia, Histiostoma and Glyphanoetus in family Histiostomatidae. Identification keys, taxonomical observations, differentiation remarks, comparison of characters, similarity matrices, Phenograms and Geographical maps of new species along with 48 alien species had been prepared. Conducted research work on Integrated Management of Cotton Leaf Curl Disease, Pest scouting, Pest monitoring and forecasting; planning, designing and layout of different research trials and data recording for integrated pest management on different crops, vegetables and orchards. Imparted training to the farmers and Field Staff, and provision of advisory services to the farmers regarding plant protection practices. Instructed training to the pesticides dealers for proper handling, distribution and storing of pesticides, their legal aspects and sampling of pesticides for the purpose of quality control. Joined Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, as Senior Scientist, on 1st June 2001 and involved in the research Projects, viz., Studies on the ecology, behavior and control of rice stem borers, Insect pests management of Brassica crops, Ecology and control of gram pod borers, and Management of post harvest food losses. Currently, conducting research work on IPM of Mosquitoes, Cotton insect pests and Fruit flies. Dr. Muhammad Hamed is working as Deputy Chief Scientist and Head, Plant Protection Division, at NIAB, Faisalabad. He has 30 years research experience in IPM, Mass rearing of beneficial insects, Biological Control and Radiation Entomology. He got specialized Training/ Visit/ Presentation on areawide pest control-2005 (IAEA, Vienna, Austria); Visit/ Training on rearing of beneficial insects-2003 (Uzbekistan); Visit/ Training on rearing of PBW-1996 (Phoenix, Arizona, USA); Visit/ Training on rearing of codling moth-1996 (Osoyoos B.C., Canada); Training on SIT and use of radiation/ isotopes in Entomology-1984 (Florida, USA). He has enormous experience in biological control and conducted Post Doctoral research on Predator of fig wasp at University of Leeds, United Kingdom, in 2007. Dr. Bilal Rasool is Entomologist/ Molecular Ecologist with research experience in several groups of organisms including insects. His recent developments in molecular genetics offer powerful tools to assess evolutionary history and current developmental trends of populations, species and ecosystems. Here thought is to conserve the benefits and highlight topics that warrant additional research in the field beside the management of already available information for better integration, and his aim is to utilize these tools to answer biological questions. He was a Scientist at NIAB, Faisalabad. He got his Ph. D. Degree from IAEA, Vienna, Austria. Now he has joined as Assistant Professor Department of Zoology, G. C. University, Faisalabad.

Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, is working as Principal Scientific Assistant in Plant Protection Division. He is the member of scientific team of Division who is doing research on IPM. He has thirty one years experience in the field of IPM and assisted in evolving 3 insect pests resistant cotton varieties (NIABKarishma, NIAB-86 & NIAB-26-N). He has the capability to data recording, compilation and analysis.

Mr. Mureed Hussain, has twenty nine years of research experience as Scientific Assistant in Plant Protection Division. He involved in evolving 3 insect pests resistant cotton varieties of this Institute. Expert to make use of Word Processing (MS Word), Internet Operations (including browsing, email messages etc), Presentations (MS Power point), and Spread sheet skills (MS Excel).

194