EPPO Global Database

Bactrocera kandiensis(BCTRKA)

EPPO Datasheet: Bactrocera kandiensis

Last updated: 2020-09-23


Preferred name: Bactrocera kandiensis
Authority: Drew & Hancock
Taxonomic position: Animalia: Arthropoda: Hexapoda: Insecta: Diptera: Tephritidae
Other scientific names: Bactrocera species D
view more common names online...
Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature

Bactrocera kandiensis belongs to the B. dorsalis species complex (see Drew & Hancock, 1994).

EPPO Categorization: A1 list
view more categorizations online...

HOSTS 2020-09-23

This pest species has wide range of hosts. It has been reported from approximately 25 different host plants belonging to 14 different families.

Host list: Anacardium occidentale, Annona glabra, Areca catechu, Artocarpus heterophyllus, Artocarpus nobilis, Averrhoa carambola, Careya arborea, Carica papaya, Citrus maxima, Donella lanceolata, Garcinia sp., Garcinia xanthochymus, Mangifera indica, Mangifera zeylanica, Persea americana, Psidium cattleyanum, Psidium guajava, Punica granatum, Spondias dulcis, Spondias pinnata, Syzygium aromaticum, Syzygium jambos, Terminalia catappa, x Citrofortunella microcarpa


This species is restricted to Sri Lanka.

Asia: Sri Lanka

BIOLOGY 2020-09-23

Little is known about the biology of B. kandiensis. The general life cycle is considered similar to those of other Bactrocera species infesting fruits: eggs are laid below the skin of the host fruit. Three larval stages develop inside the fruit, feeding on the plant tissue. Once mature the third instar larva will leave the fruit, dig down into the soil and turn into a pupa enclosed in a puparium. The adult fly will emerge from the puparium. No information is available regarding the duration of the life cycle or the environmental requirements.



Attacked fruit have tiny oviposition punctures, but these and other symptoms of damage are often difficult to detect in the early stages of infestation. Considerable damage may occur inside the fruit before symptoms are visible externally, often as networks of tunnels accompanied by rotting.



Fruit fly larvae in general have a typical shape, i.e., cylindrical maggot-shape, elongate, anterior end narrowed and somewhat recurved ventrally, with anterior mouth hooks, and flattened caudal end. Their length varies from 5 to 15 mm. Identification to species level is not possible based on larvae. A key for the 3rd-instar larvae is available in White & Elson- Harris (1992) and is useful for an identification to the genus level. The larvae of B. kandiensis have not been described in detail. 

Adult (after diagnostic description given by Drew & Romig, 2013. Additional character states of the female after Drew & Hancock, 1994)

Face fulvous with a pair of large oval black spots; postpronotal lobes yellow (anteromedial corners red-brown); notopleura yellow; scutum black except brown below and behind lateral postsutural vittae, around notopleural suture, inside postpronotal lobes, around prescutellar setae and on anterocentral margin; narrow parallel-sided lateral postsutural yellow vittae ending at intra-alar seta; medial postsutural yellow vitta absent; mesopleural stripe slightly wider than notopleuron dorsally; scutellum yellow with a moderately broad black basal band; legs with femora fulvous with dark fuscous on outer apical two-thirds of fore femora, inner apical half of mid and inner apical one-third of hind femora; fore tibiae fuscous, mid tibiae fulvous, hind tibiae dark fuscous; wing with cells bc and c colourless, microtrichia in outer corner of cell c only; a narrow fuscous costal band confluent with R2+3 and remaining narrow around margin of wing to end between extremities of R4+5 and M; a narrow fuscous anal streak; supernumerary lobe of medium development; abdominal terga III-V orange-brown with a narrow transverse black band across anterior margin of tergum III but not covering lateral margins, a very narrow medial longitudinal fuscous to dark fuscous band over all three terga (occasionally interrupted at intersegmental lines) and very narrow fuscous to dark fuscous anterolateral corners on terga IV and V, a pair of oval orange-brown shining spots on tergum V; abdominal sterna dark coloured. 

As for male in the general body colour patterns. Wing, supernumerary lobe weak; pecten absent from abdominal tergum III. Ovipositor basal segment orange-brown, dorsoventrally compressed and tapering posteriorly in dorsal view; ratio of length of oviscape to length of tergum V, 1.1:1; aculeus apex needle shaped. 

Remark: differentiation between this species and closely related species within the B. dorsalis species complex is difficult and needs expert confirmation. See ISPM 27 DP 29 (IPPC, 2019) for details on how to differentiate between the main species of commercial importance belonging to the species complex.

DNA barcoding 

The molecular identification of B. kandiensis through DNA barcoding proves to be problematic as this species cannot be properly resolved from a number of closely related species, including species from the B. dorsalis species complex (see ISPM 27 DP 29 -  IPPC, 2019). Additionally, the presence of unidentified / possibly misidentified reference sequence in BINs in which this species is represented, might also bias its molecular ID. Sequences are available in the Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD).

Detection and inspection methods

Males are attracted to methyl eugenol. Both sexes can also be monitored by traps baited with protein based attractants. Detection is also possible by examination of fruit for oviposition punctures and then rearing the larvae through to the adult stage.


Transport of infested fruits is the main mean of movement and dispersal to previously uninfested areas. Adult flight can also result in dispersal but previous citations of long (50-100 km) dispersal movements for Bactrocera spp. are unsubstantiated according to a recent review by Hicks et al. (2019). Dispersal up to 2 km is considered more typical.


Economic impact

CABI indicates that B. kandiensis can cause 100% damage to unprotected mango. 


Management for this species includes the general control measures for Bactrocera spp. (see Vargas et al. 2015 for an overview of management options). These include sanitation (to gather all fallen and infested host fruits and destroy them). Insecticidal protection is possible by using a cover spray or a bait spray. Bait sprays work on the principle that both male and female tephritids are strongly attracted to a protein source from which ammonia emanates. Bait sprays have the advantage over cover sprays in that they can be applied as a spot treatment so that the flies are attracted to the insecticide and there is minimal impact on natural enemies and other beneficials.

Phytosanitary risk

Bactrocera kandiensis is a known pest of peach in the area where it is present. It can be moved in trade with infested fruit. No detailed study has been made on climatic suitability of the EPPO region for this species, and it is unclear whether it could become established in the EPPO region. However, even transient populations could impact export of host fruit from the EPPO region. The EFSA Panel on Plant Health, in their Pest Categorization of non-EU Tephritidae (EFSA, 2020) placed B. kandiensis on the list of fruit flies that satisfy the criteria to be regarded as a potential Union quarantine pest for the EU.


Consignments of fruits from countries or regions where B. kandiensis occurs should be inspected for symptoms of infestation and those suspected should be cut open in order to look for larvae. Possible measures include that such fruits should come from an area where B. kandiensis does not occur, or from a place of production found free from the pest by regular inspection in the 3 months before harvest. Plants transported with roots from countries or regions where B. kandiensis occurs should be free from soil, or the soil should be treated against puparia. The plants should not carry fruits.

REFERENCES 2020-09-23

EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), Bragard C, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Di Serio F, Gonthier P, Jacques MA, Jaques Miret JA, Justesen AF, Magnusson CS, Milonas P, Navas-Cortes JA, Parnell S, Potting R, Reignault PL, Thulke HH, Van der Werf W, Vicent Civera A, Yuen J, Zappalà L, Bali EM, Papadopoulos N, Papanastassiou S, Czwienczek E & MacLeod A (2020) Pest categorization of non-EU Tephritidae. EFSA Journal 18: 5931, 62pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.5931

Drew RAI & Hancock DL (1994) The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Asia. Bulletin of Entomological Research suppl. Series 2, 1-68.

Drew RAI & Romig MC (2013) Tropical Fruit Flies of South-East Asia. CABI, Wallingford, vii+653pp. 

Hicks CB, Bloem K, Pallipparambil GR & Hartzog HM (2019) Reported long-distance flight of the invasive Oriental fruit fly and its trade implications. In Area-Wide Management of Fruit Flies (eds Pérez-Staples D, Diaz-Fleischer F, Montoya P. & Vera MT), pp. 9-26. CRC Press, Boca Raton (US) 

IPPC (2019). ISPM 27 Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests DP 29: Bactrocera dorsalis. International Plant Protection Convention, FAO, Rome (Italy), 39pp.

Vargas RI, Pinero JC & Leblanc L (2015) An overview of pest species of Bactrocera fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the integration of biopesticides with other biological approaches for their management with a focus on the Pacific region. Insects 6, 297-318.

White IM & Elson-Harris MM (1992) Fruit flies of economic significance: their identification and bionomics. CAB International, Wallingford, xii+601pp

CABI resources used when preparing this datasheet

CABI Datasheet on Pest https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/8716


This datasheet was prepared in 2020 by Dr M. de Meyer. His valuable contribution is gratefully acknowledged.

How to cite this datasheet?

EPPO (2021) Bactrocera kandiensis. EPPO datasheets on pests recommended for regulation. Available online. https://gd.eppo.int

Datasheet history 2020-09-23

This datasheet was first published in 1997 in the second edition of 'Quarantine Pests for Europe', as part of the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex, and revised in 2020. It is now maintained in an electronic format in the EPPO Global Database. The sections on 'Identity', ‘Hosts’, and 'Geographical distribution' are automatically updated from the database. For other sections, the date of last revision is indicated on the right.

CABI/EPPO (1997) Quarantine Pests for Europe (2nd edition). CABI, Wallingford (GB).