Boletín de la Sociedad Zoológica del Uruguay, 2025

Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

ISSN 2393-6940

https://journal.szu.org.uy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26462/34.1.9

ABSTRACT

Within Uruguay's fruit plantations, both Anastrepha

fraterculus Wiedemann and Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann

are reported as species of economic importance. These

species are polyphagous and cause economic problems

in fruit orchards. Currently, different control methods and

techniques are combined, but in some cases, they are

insufficient to prevent the damage caused by these

species. We evaluated the attractiveness of different baits

for fruit flies, as well as their selectivity toward non-target

arthropods, in two peach and mandarin farms in southern

Uruguay. Four treatments with three replicates were

evaluated: diammonium phosphate (DAP), torula yeast

® ® ®

(PBX ), torula yeast 'type B' and Cera Trap /Plustrap .

Captured arthropods were separated into three groups:

tephritids, beneficial and other. Tephritids were sexed,

dissecting females to determine the presence of

developed ovaries. All treatments were effective in

capturing young females of C. capitata, while captures of

A. fraterculus were very low. Captures of beneficial

arthropods were relatively low, with DAP capturing the

highest number. Lastly, torula yeast 'type B' was the one

that captured the greatest number of non-target insects.

Keywords: Ceratitis capitata, Anastrepha fraterculus,

DAP, traps.

RESUMEN

Evaluación de potenciales atrayentes para moscas de

la fruta (Diptera: Tephritidae) de importancia

económica en Uruguay. En las plantaciones frutícolas

de Uruguay, tanto Anastrepha fraterculus Wiedemann

como Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann se reportan como

especies de importancia económica. Estas especies son

polífagas y generan problemas económicos en predios

frutales. Actualmente, se combinan diferentes métodos y

técnicas de control que, en algunos casos, son

insuficientes para prevenir el daño ocasionado por estas

especies. En este estudio, evaluamos la atracción de

diferentes cebos para moscas de la fruta y su selectividad

hacia artrópodos no objetivo en dos predios de durazno y

mandarina en el sur de Uruguay. Se evaluaron cuatro

tratamientos con tres réplicas: fosfato diamónico (DAP),

levadura torula (PBX ), levadura torula 'type B' y Cera

® ®

Trap /Plustrap . Los artrópodos capturados se separaron

en tres grupos: tefrítidos, benéficos y otros. Los tefrítidos

fueron sexados, disecando a las hembras para

determinar la presencia de ovarios desarrollados. Todos

los tratamientos fueron efectivos en la captura de

hembras jóvenes de C. capitata, mientras que las

capturas de A. fraterculus fueron escasas. Las capturas

de artrópodos benéficos fueron bajas, siendo DAP el

tratamiento que capturó el mayor número. Finalmente, la

levadura torula 'type B' fue la que capturó la mayor

cantidad de insectos no objetivo.

Palabras clave: Ceratitis capitata, Anastrepha

fraterculus, DAP, trampas.

INTRODUCTION

Fruit flies are dipterans from the Tephritidae family,

whose larvae develop and feed inside fruits (Echeverri

& Yepes, 2019; Scatoni, Calvo, Delgado, Duarte &

Zefferino, 2019). These insects are considered

significant pests on both global and regional scale due

to the substantial economic losses they cause

(Allwood, Leblanc, Tora Vueti & Bull, 2001; Buenahora

& Otero, 2012; Scatoni et al., 2019). In Uruguay, two

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL LURES FOR FRUIT FLIES (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE) OF ECONOMIC

IMPORTANCE IN URUGUAY

1 1,2 1

Milagros Valverde * , Vitor C. Pacheco da Silva , Soledad Delgado and

María V. Calvo

1Unidad de Entomología, Departamento de Protección Vegetal, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de la

República, Garzón 780, Montevideo, Uruguay.

2Sección Entomología, Departamento de Biología Animal, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de la República,

Iguá 4225, Montevideo, Uruguay.

* Corresponding author: mvalverde@fcien.edu.uy

Fecha de recepción: 28 de octubre de 2024

Fecha de aceptación: 30 de diciembre de 2024

VALVERDE et al.

economically important species have been recorded:

Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) and Ceratitis

capitata (Wiedemann) (Malavasi, Rohwer & Campbell,

2019; Calvo, Duarte, Delgado, Mello Garcia & Scatoni,

2024). Ceratitis capitata, the Mediterranean fruit fly,

with an afrotropical origin, is recognized as the most

damaging pests in global fruit production due to the

large number and variety of hosts it attacks and its

cosmopolitan distribution (Malavasi et al., 2019).

Anastrepha fraterculus, the South American fruit fly, is

native to the Neotropical region and forms a complex of

polyphagous species with at least eight described

morphotypes (Hernández-Ortiz & Aluja, 1993; Scatoni

et al., 2019).

In light of the damage and the increasing

restrictions imposed by export destinations, early

detection, pest control and the development of new

managment alternatives are necessary (Arroyo et al.,

2013; Delgado, Calvo, Duarte, Borges & Scatoni,

2022; Delgado, Duarte, Yakimik & Calvo, 2024).

Currently, various methods and control techniques are

combined to manage this species, including physical,

biological, ethological (mass trapping), cultural,

chemical, and autocidal approaches (Delgado et al.,

2022; Duarte, Calvo, Delgado, Garcia & Scatoni, 2021;

Sabater-Muñóz et al., 2012). In Uruguay, pest

management is primarily based on chemical control

and mass trapping, often implemented in combination

due to the high pest populations observed (Buenahora,

2015; Delgado et al., 2022, 2024).

Mass trapping uses a high density of traps with

species-specific attractants to capture the largest

possible number of adult flies (Buenahora, 2015). An

efficient attractant must meet certain criteria: primarily

capturing immature females to prevent oviposition

damage (Vilajeliu, Batellori & Escudero, 2007), being

selective towards non-target arthropods (Porcel,

Campos, Ruano, Sanllorente & Caballero, 2009; Son,

Suh & Choi, 2019), and having a cost-effective

application for use in fruit fly monitoring and mass

trapping programs (Kouloussis et al., 2022). On the

other hand, in Uruguay, the attractants available on the

market for mass trapping were designed for C.

capitata, resulting in lower development of lures for A.

fraterculus. In the search for attractants that meet the

aforementioned criteria, the efficacy of two

compounds, torula yeast 'type B' and diammonium

phosphate (DAP), was evaluated. Torula yeast 'type B'

has been used in tephritid diets and could serve as a

new attractant for monitoring populations, while DAP is

an inexpensive phosphorus fertilizer that releases

ammonia when dissolved, which has shown certain

attractiveness to fruit flies (Sadraoui-Ajmi et al., 2022).

The volatile compounds derived from ammonia are

perceived by insects as an indicator of a food source

(Lasa & Williams, 2021). Regionally, there have been

limited studies on its efficacy, but its use is beginning to

be recommended for informal fruit fly control (Triadani

& Buxmann, 2019).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted from January to March of

2023, on two fruit farms in the southern part of Uruguay

(Canelones), both with a history of high fruit fly

infestation. The orchards selected were: peach trees

'Moscato Delicia' and 'Moscato Tardío' (34°34'26.72"S,

56°18'28.03"W), and mandarin trees 'Afourer'

(34°37'15.90"S, 56°21'21.40"W). During the study, ripe

fruit, which is attractive to tephritids, was observed on

the selected orchards. While late peach varieties are

harvested in February or March, the 'Afourer' variety is

harvested in June or July (Instituto Nacional de

Investigación Agropecuaria, 2019). Nonetheless, the

orchard with 'Afourer' mandarin trees was used due to

the presence of early-ripening fruit, as it was a year of

uneven ripening and high captures were recorded in

traps installed by the fruit fly surveillance network of the

Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture, and Fisheries

(Uruguay). This information is relevant considering

that, according to the label recommendations, lures are

installed in orchards 45 days before harvest.

Four treatments were evaluated with three

repetitions on each site: DAP (ISUSA, Uruguay), torula

yeast/borax ('PBX ', SUSBIN, Argentina), torula yeast

'type B' (Lallemand, Argentina) and CeraTrap

(Bioiberica S.A., Spain)/PlusTrap (SUSBIN,

® ® ®

Argentina). PBX and CeraTrap /PlusTrap were used

as controls, as both treatments have been extensively

studied and are commercially available in Uruguay.

CeraTrap was used from week 16/01 - 22/01 until

week 13/02 - 19/02 in the peach orchard (5 weeks) and

from week 23/01 - 29/01 to week 20/02 - 26/02 in the

mandarin orchard (5 weeks), when it was replaced by

PlusTrap . This change was due to the lack of

CeraTrap at the time of replenishing. ®

The attractant solutions of DAP, PBX , and torula

yeast 'type B' were evaluated in McPhail traps. DAP,

following the regional recommendation (Instituto

Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria, s.f.), was

prepared 24 hours prior to the trial installation by mixing

12.5 grams in 300 mL of water. For PBX and 'type B'

yeast, four pellets and 12 g respectively (equivalent to

the weight of four torula pellets) were dissolved in 300

mL of water, following the manufacturer's

® ®

recommendations. CeraTrap and PlusTrap are

commercial products ready for use, consisting of the

trap and the attractant liquid, that last 45 days (Garrido

& Simón, 2019). All traps were placed in the tree

canopies, 1.5 meters above the ground, and were

evenly distributed (FAO/International Atomic Energy

Agency, 2018), separated by at least 15 meters from

each other. Also, traps were inspected and rotated

every other week, and re-baited every week, or after 45

® ®

days in the case of the treatment CeraTrap /PlusTrap ,

over a period of 10 weeks.

The captured specimens were collected, placed in

labeled plastic tubes with 70% alcohol, and transported

to the laboratory of the Entomology Laboratory at the

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

3 Potential attractants for fruit flies

Faculty of Agronomy. The collected specimens were

taxonomically identified to species level for Tephritidae

using the key by Norrbom et al. (2012), while other

arthropods were classified to order and/or family level,

following the key by Bentancourt, Scatoni and Morelli

(2009). Tephritids were sexed and counted, and

females were dissected to check the presence of

developed ovaries, an indicator of sexual maturity

(Delgado et al., 2022). Selectivity of the attractants was

assessed by the number of tephritids and non-target

arthropods (beneficials and others) captured.

Statistical analyses were performed using the

accumulated capture data. The accumulated means of

fruit flies (total captures, and captures of mature and

immature females), as well as captures of non-target

arthropods between treatments, were analyzed using a

Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM), adjusted to

a Quasi-Poisson distribution, followed by comparison

using the DGC test (p = 0.05) (Di Rienzo et al., 2010).

The captures of mature and immature females, and the

captures of non-target arthropods within each

treatment, were analyzed using a Chi-Square test (p =

0.05).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Over the 10-week evaluation period a total of 3001

tephritids were recorded, with significantly more

females (n = 1907) than males (n = 1094) captured in

both trials (GLMM, p ≤ 0.05). All evaluated attractants

captured more females than males, which is desirable

in an attractant for mass trapping. This result aligns with

findings from previous studies (Hafsi, Harbi, Rahmouni

& Chermiti, 2015; Cotoc-Roldán, Vela-Luch, Estrada-

Marroquín & Hernández-Pérez, 2021; Ghanim, El-

Sharkawy & El-Baradey, 2021; Delgado et al., 2022).

Captures of C. capitata accounted for 99% of the

total, while A. fraterculus represented only 1% (n = 27)

(Table 1). The low capture rate of A. fraterculus

prevented an assessment of the effectiveness of the

evaluated attractants for this species. Such low

representation could be due to either a low population

density during the study (fruit infestation was not

evaluated) or possible inefficiencies in the attractants

used. Delgado et al. (2022) reported similar results in A.

fraterculus captures. However, fruit infestation was

observed during harvest, suggesting the presence of

this species in the area, even if its populations were not

fully detected through trapping methods.

For C. capitata, no significant differences were

observed in accumulated captures between

treatments (GLMM, p ≥ 0.05) (Fig. 1), which may

suggest that DAP and torula yeast 'type B' are as

effective as the commercial attractants used. Delgado

et al. (2020), Buenahora and Otero (2013), and Shelly

and Kurashima (2016) observed significant differences

in female captures between torula yeast, CeraTrap ,

® ®

and PlusTrap , with CeraTrap being the most effective

attractant. These differences with our results may be

due to variations in experimental design, specifically

regarding trap spatial distribution and density.

Regarding sexual maturity, 71% of captured C.

capitata females exhibited developed ovaries, while for

A. fraterculus, of the 12 females captured, eight were

mature. In both farms, the treatments that captured the

most mature females were DAP and PBX (χ², p ≤

0.05). Mangan and Thomas (2014) and Shelly,

Kurashima, Nishimoto and Andress (2017) also found

that PBX has a higher capture rate for mature females

compared to other attractants. Roh, Kendra and Cha

(2021) suggests that mature females prefer the scent

of torula yeast due to their increased protein needs for

producing the critical egg load required for oviposition.

All evaluated treatments were able to capture sexually

immature females, although no significant differences

were observed compared to captures of mature

females (GLMM, p ≥ 0.05). The search for new

attractants is focused on compounds that capture the

highest number of females, particularly immature ones,

to prevent oviposition punctures in fruits (Vilajeliu et al.,

2007).

In terms of total arthropod captures (including

tephritids), torula yeast 'type B' and PBX attracted the

highest number of individuals, with most captures

belonging to the category of other arthropods (Fig. 2).

Selectivity is an essential trait for an attractant,

especially in mass trapping due to the high number of

traps deployed in crops. Among the attractants

evaluated, DAP captured a higher number of beneficial

arthropods (GLMM, p ≤ 0.05) (Table 2). The high

capture rate may be attributed to the use of McPhail

traps, which have a larger opening (approximately a

diameter of 8 cm) than those typically used in mass

trapping (1 cm diameter holes). Braham (2013)

showed that DAP captured a lower number of

beneficial insects (syrphids and lacewings) when using

traps with smaller openings than the McPhail trap.

As mentioned above, torula yeast 'type B' treatment

showed significant attractiveness to other arthropods

(GLMM, p ≤ 0.05). Torula yeast-based attractants are

known for capturing many non-target arthropods

(Thomas, 2003; Delgado et al., 2022). Uchida et al.

(2006) observed that the attraction of torula yeast is

due not only to the attractant itself but also to the

decomposition of insects accumulating in the traps.

Additionally, in this study, the lack of borax stabilization

led to rapid decomposition, producing an unpleasant

odor that attracted various Diptera taxa, such as

Calliphoridae, Muscidae, and Sarcophagidae, the

most frequently captured families (Table 2).

CONCLUSION

DAP emerges as a viable novel option for mass

trapping of fruit flies due to its low cost and ease of use,

which may make it an efficient attractant based on the

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

VALVERDE et al. 4

Table 1. Accumulated captures of A. fraterculus by the different treatments.

Treatment Accumulated captures

PBX® 13

Torula yeast ‘type B’ 4

DAP 9

® ®

CeraTrap /PlusTrap 1

Table 2. Orders or families of arthropods captured by different treatments during the study period.

® ®

Order/Family PBX® Torula yeast ‘type B’ DAP CeraTrap /PlusTrap TOTAL

Diptera

Agromyzidae 24 41 4 32 101

Anthomyiidae 0 137 4 7 148

Calliphoridae 6 1375 6 1 1388

Cecidomyiidae 10 2 113 6 131

Ceratopogonidae 0 0 0 1 1

Chloropidae 999 52 70 49 1170

Culicidae 1 5 2 2 10

Drosophilidae 12 37 6 13 68

Lonchaeidae 334 41 57 8 440

Muscidae/Fanniidae 18 6821 9 13 6861

Mycetophilidae 0 1 6 0 7

Otitidae 24 301 9 25 359

Phoridae 111 104 136 28 379

Psychodidae 0 103 4 1 108

Sarcophagidae 1236 4700 62 96 6094

Scatopsidae 0 2 0 0 2

Sciaridae 3 4 5 1 13

Stratiomyidae 0 0 1 0 1

Syrphidae 0 0 7 1 8

Tachinidae 8 1 28 2 39

Fig. 1. Accumulated captures of immature (yellow) and mature (red) females of Ceratitis capitata. Uppercase letters indicate

significant differences between treatments in the captures of immature females, while lowercase letters indicate differences in

the captures of mature females (MLGM, p ≤ 0.05). A. 'Moscato Delicia' and 'Moscato tardío' peach orchard; B. 'Afourer' mandarin

orchard.

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

5 Potential attractants for fruit flies

Table 2. Cont.

® ®

Order/Family PBX® Torula yeast ‘type B’ DAP CeraTrap /PlusTrap TOTAL

Other Tephritidae 0 0 1 0 1

Hymenoptera

Apidae 1 0 0 3 4

Bethylidae 6 2 1 13 22

Braconidae 1 0 2 0 3

Chalcididae 0 3 0 1 4

Encyrtidae 0 2 0 0 2

Figitidae 0 9 1 0 10

Formicidae 162 82 26 170 440

Ichneumonidae 2 0 0 0 2

Pompilidae 1 0 5 0 6

Proctotrupidae 1 0 0 0 1

Pteromalidae 5 17 5 51 78

Vespidae 41 20 138 2 201

Coleoptera

Anthribidae 1 0 0 0 1

Carabidae 1 0 0 0 1

Cerambycidae 0 0 0 1 1

Chrysomelidae 2 1 0 1 4

Coccinellidae 2 1 1 0 4

Curculionidae 0 0 0 6 6

Laemophloeidae 0 0 0 1 1

Nitidulidae 0 2 0 7 9

Staphylinidae 10 2 3 0 15

Araneae

Cheiracanthiidae 0 1 0 1 2

Dictynidae 0 1 0 0 1

Lycosidae 1 0 0 0 1

Oxyopidae 0 1 0 0 1

Salticidae 7 6 4 1 18

Sparassidae 1 0 1 0 2

Thomisidae 0 1 0 1 2

Hemiptera

Delphacidae 0 0 0 1 1

Derbidae 0 0 4 0 4

Dictyopharidae 3 0 0 0 3

Neuroptera

Chrysopidae 5 2 22 0 29

Lepidoptera 31 103 126 13 273

Mantodea 0 1 0 0 1

Blattodea 0 3 0 7 10

Orthoptera 0 2 0 0 2

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

VALVERDE et al.

required dosages. However, further research is

needed to evaluate its durability in the field, its

attractiveness to A. fraterculus, and assess its

selectivity concerning beneficial arthropods. For torula

yeast 'type B', future studies should focus on testing a

stabilized form of the attractant, as this could improve

its efficacy in capturing fruit flies, although it is

necessary to evaluate its cost-effectiveness in mass

trapping. Additionally, it is essential to advance the

research on effective attractants for controlling A.

fraterculus.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the fruit producers who

granted access to their fields, allowing the trials to be

conducted. We thank the Faculty of Agronomy at the

University of the Republic in Uruguay for providing

transportation and the necessary facilities to conduct

this study. And lastly, we express our gratitude to

Damián Hagopián for helping identify the spider

families.

REFERENCES

Allwood, A.J., Leblanc, L., Tora Vueti, E., & Bull, R.

(2001). Fruit fly control methods for Pacific

Island countries and territories. Pest advisory

leaflet, 40, 11-17.

Arroyo, F.T., Fairfield, S., García-Galavis, P.A.,

Santamaría, C., Pérez-Romero, L.F., & Daza, A.

(2013). Control de la mosca mediterránea de la

fruta (Ceratitis Capitata Wiedermann) en ciruelo

ecológico mediante trampeo masivo. Retrieved

23 august 2024 from https://issuu.com/horticul

turaposcosecha/docs/130406_ceratitis_arroyo

Bentancourt, C.M., Scatoni, I.B., & Morelli, E. (2009).

Insectos del Uruguay. Montevideo: Facultad de

Agronomía.

Braham, M. (2013). Trapping adults of the Medfly

Ceratitis capitata and non target insects:

comparison of low-cost traps and lures. Tunisian

Journal of Plant Protection, 8(2), 107-118.

Buenahora, J. (2015). Un método alternativo de control

para las moscas de las frutas: trampeo masivo.

INIA. Retrieved from http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/

digital/bitstream/item/10695/1/sad-745-p.23-

27.pdf

Buenahora, J., & Otero, A. (2012). Aportes al manejo

de Mosca de la Fruta mediante trampeo masivo.

Eficiencia de distintos tipos de trampas para el

trampeo masivo de Mosca de las frutas en

Uruguay, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). INIA.

Retrieved from http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/

bitstream/item/9910/1/SAD-752.-p.77-80.pdf

Buenahora, J., & Otero, A. (2013). Eficiencia de

distintos tipos de trampas utilizadas en el

trampeo masivo de Mosca de las frutas en

Uruguay (Diptera: Tephritidae). 2do. año de

evaluación. INIA. Retrieved from http://www.

ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/10559/1/sad

-716-p.-13-23.pdf

Calvo, M.V., Duarte, F., Delgado, S., Mello Garcia, F.R.

& Scatoni, I.B. (2024). Bases for management of

fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Uruguay. In

F.R. Mello Garcia Editor (Ed.), Management of

Fig. 2. Percentage of Tephritidae (orange), other arthropods (blue), and beneficial arthropods (green) captured by the different

treatments.

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

Fruit Flies in the Americas (1 ed., pp. 539-555).

Springer, Cham.

Cotoc-Roldán, E.M., Vela-Luch, W.C., Estrada-

Marroquín, C., & Hernández-Pérez, R. (2021).

Evaluación de trampas para el seguimiento de

Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann, 1824) (Diptera:

Tephritidae) en el cultivo del café en

Acatenango, Guatemala. Revista chilena de

entomología, 47(1), 147-156.

Delgado, S.A., Calvo, M.V., Duarte, F., Borges, A., &

Scatoni, I.B. (2022). Food Attractants for mass

trapping of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and

its selectivity for beneficial arthropods. Florida

Entomologist, 105(3), 185-193.

Delgado, S., Duarte, F., Yakimik, N., & Calvo, M.V.

(2024). Contribution of commercial traps to the

efficiency and selectivity of mass trapping

attractants for tephritids. International Journal of

Pest Management, 1-9.

Di Rienzo, J.A., Casanoves, F., Balzarini, M.G.,

Gonzalez, L., Tablada, M., & Robledo, C.W.

(2010). InfoStat (Versión 2020). Centro de

Transferencia InfoStat. http://www.infostat.

com.ar

Duarte, F., Calvo, M.V., Delgado, S.A., Garcia, F.R., &

Scatoni, I.B. (2021). Spatio-temporal

distribution of Anastrepha fraterculus and

Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) captures

and their relationship with fruit infestation in

farms with a diversity of hosts. Florida

Entomologist, 104(4), 297-306.

Ghanim, N.M., El-Sharkawy, R.A., & El-Baradey, W.M.

(2021). Influence of mixing ammonium acetate

and di-ammonium phosphate on their attraction

to the peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Diptera:

Tephritidae) under field conditions. Egyptian

Journal of Plant Protection Research Institute,

4(2), 230-239.

Hafsi, A., Harbi, A., Rahmouni, R., & Chermiti, B.

(2015). Evaluation of the efficiency of mass

trapping of Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann)

(Diptera: Tephritidae) in Tunisian citrus orchards

using two types of traps: Ceratrap® and

Tripack®. Acta Hortic, 1065, 1049-1056.

Hernández-Ortiz, V., & Aluja, M. (1993) Listado de

especies del género neotropical Anastrepha

Schiner (Diptera: Tephritidae) con notas sobre

su distribución y plantas hospederas. Folia

Entomológica Mexicana, 88, 89-105.

Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria

(2019). Nuevas híbridos de mandarina de

maduración tardía. Nuevas variedades de

naranjas liberadas. Retrieved from http://inia.

uy/Documentos/P%C3%BAblicos/INIA%20Sal

to%20Grande/2019_2025_Actividades/2019/2

019_08_28_MandarinasTardias/Jornada%20d

e%20presentaci%C3%B3n%20de%20varieda

des%20tard%C3%ADas%202019.pdf

Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (s.f.).

CARTILLA PRÁCTICA Nº 1. LA MOSCA DE LA

FRUTA (Ceratitis capitata). Retrieved from

https://repositorio.inta.gob.ar/xmlui/bitstream/h

andle/20.500.12123/6565/INTA_CR%20Cordo

ba_EEA%20Manfredi_Triadani%20O%20E_L

a_mosca_de_las_frutas.pdf?sequence=1&isAl

lowed=y

Kouloussis, N.A., Mavraganis, V.G., Damos, P.,

Ioannou, C.S., Bempelou, E., Koveos, D.S., &

Papadopoulos, N.T. (2022). Trapping of

Ceratitis capitata using the low-cost and non-

toxic attractant Biodelear. Agronomy, 12(2),

525.

Lasa, R., & Williams, T. (2021). Does ammonia

released from protein-based attractants

modulate the capture of Anastrepha obliqua

(Diptera: Tephritidae)?. Insects, 12(2), 156.

Malavasi, A., Rohwer, G.G., & Campbell, D.S. (2019).

Fruit fly free areas: strategies to develop them.

In C. Calkins (Ed.). Fruit flies and the sterile

insect technique (pp. 165-180). CRC Press.

Mangan, R.L., & Thomas, D.B. (2014). Comparison of

torula yeast and various grape juice products as

attractants for Mexican fruit fly (Diptera:

Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology,

107(2), 591-600.

Norrbom, A.L., Korytkowski, C.A., Zucchi, R.A.,

Uramoto, K., Venable, G.L., McCormick, J., &

Dallwitz, M.J. (2012). Anastrepha and

Toxotrypana: descriptions, illustrations, and

interactive keys. Retrieved 12 june 2023, from

https://www.delta-intkey.com/anatox/index.htm

Porcel, M., Campos, M., Ruano, F., Sanllorente, O., &

Caballero, J.A. (2009). Incidence of the OLIPE

mass-trapping on olive non-target arthropods.

Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(3),

660-664.

Sabater-Muñoz, B., Tormos, J., De-Pedro, L., Harbi, A.,

Tur, C., Briasco, M., Verdú, M.J., & Beitia, F.J.

(2012). Estrategias de control integrado de

Ceratitis capitata en cítricos. Vida Rural, (353),

42-45.

Sadraoui-Ajmi, I., Benali, N., Soltani, A., Chaib, S.,

Limem, E., Jallouli, S., Boushih, E., Fajraoui, A.,

& Jemâa, J.M.B. (2022). Usage of agricultural

DAP-fertilizer and Eucalyptus essential oils as

potential attractants against the mediterranean

fruit fly Ceratitis capitata (Tephritidae). Journal

of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 25(1).

Scatoni, I.B., Calvo, M.V., Delgado, S.A., Duarte, F., &

Zefferino, E. (2019). Las moscas de la fruta

(Diptera: Tephritidae) en el Uruguay. INIA.

Retrieved from http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/

bitstream/item/13888/1/Inia-Fpta-81-proyecto-

289-2019.pdf

Shelly, T.E., & Kurashima, R.S. (2016). Capture of

Mediterranean fruit flies and melon flies

(Diptera: Tephritidae) in food-baited traps in

Hawaii. Proceedings of the hawaiian

7 Potential attractants for fruit flies

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9

entomological society, 48, 71-84.

Shelly, T., Kurashima, R., Nishimoto, J., & Andress, E.

(2017). Capture of Zeugodacus cucurbitae

(Diptera: Tephritidae) in traps baited with torula

yeast solution versus cucumber volatile plugs.

Florida entomologist, 100(1), 15-20.

Son, A.R., Suh, S.J., & Choi, D.S. (2019). Non-target

insects captured in tephritid fruit fly (Diptera:

Tephritidae) surveillance traps in South Korea: a

survey-based study. Journal of Asia-Pacific

Biodiversity, 12(1), 129-133.

Roh, G.H., Kendra, P.E., & Cha, D.H. (2021).

Preferential attraction of oviposition-ready

oriental fruit flies to host fruit odor over protein

food odor. Insects, 12(10), 909.

Thomas, D.B. (2003). Nontarget insects captured in

fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) surveillance traps.

Journal of Economic Entomology, 96(6), 1732-

1737.

Triadani, C.O.E., & Bruxmann, E.G. (2019). La mosca

de la fruta (Ceratitis capitata). INTA. Retrieved

from https://www.mapa.gob.es/ministerio/pags/

biblioteca/hojas/hd_1988_08.pdf

Uchida, G.K., Mackey, B.E., Vargas, R.I., Beardsley,

J.W., Hardy, D., Goff, M.L., & Stark, J.D. (2006).

Response of nontarget insects to methyl

eugenol, cue-lure, trimedlure, and protein bait

bucket traps on Kauai island, Hawaii, USA.

Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological

Society, 8, 61-71.

Vilajeliu, M., Batellori, L., & Escudero, A. (2007).

Captura masiva para el control de Ceratitis

capitata. Horticultura Internacional, 56, 46-52.

Section Editors:

Anita Aisenberg, Macarena González,

Carolina Rojas-Buffet

VALVERDE et al.

Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay (2ª época). 2025. ISSN 2393-6940Vol. 34 (1): e34.1.9