D-DNS 18: 202X  
 
 
  
 
DOMINICA NATIONAL STANDARD  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DETERMINATION OF HOST STATUS OF FRUIT TO FRUIT 
FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)  
 
D-DNS 18: 202x 
 
 
 
 
©DBOS 202x  
Dominica Bureau of Standards  
National Centre of Testing Excellence  
P.O. Box 1015, Stockfarm, Roseau  
Commonwealth of Dominica, W.I.  
Tel.: 767 -275-5921/3017  
Email: info@dominicastandards.org  
 
 
 
 
 
___________ 202x       Price Group  ______  
   D-DNS 18: 202X  
 
 
   
COPYRIGHT © 202x  
 
This document contains proprietary information, and should not be published, reproduced, copied, 
disclosed or used for any purpose without the prior written approval of the Dominica Bureau of 
Standards (DBOS).  This does not preclude  quotation for the purposes of review or comments. 
Enquiries relating to copyright may be addressed to the Director, Dominica Bureau of Standards  
  
i 
 Draft No.  1 
ISSUED FOR COMMENT ONLY  
DRAFT  
DOMINICA NATIONAL STANDARD  
DETERMINATION OF HOST STATUS OF FRUIT TO FRUIT FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)  
 
D-DNS 18: 202x  
 
 
 
 
 
Last date for comments …………………………..  
 
 
 
DOMINICA BUREAU OF STANDARDS  
National Centre of Testing Excellence  
Stockfarm  
P.O. Box 1015  
Roseau  
COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA  
Email: info@dominicastandards.org   
  This is a draft and should not be regarded or used as a 
Dominica National Standard   
ii 
 GENERAL STATEMENT  
 
The Dominica Bureau of Standards was established under the Standards Act (#4) of 1999 and 
started operations in April 2000. A broad -based 15 -member Standards Council governs the affairs 
of the Bureau.  
 
The Standards Act gives the Bureau the responsibility  to facilitate the development and promotion 
of Standards and Codes of Practice for products and services for the protection of the health and 
safety of consumers and the environment as well as for industrial development in order to promote 
the enhancement  of the economy of Dominica.  
 
The Bureau develops Standards through consultations with relevant interest groups. In accordance 
with the provisions of the Standards Act, public comment is invited on all draft Standards before 
they are declared as Dominica National Standards (DNS).  
 
The Bureau is a correspondent member body of the International Organization for Standardization 
(ISO), an affiliate member of the International Electro -technical Commission (IEC), and a member 
of the Caribbean Regional Organizat ion for Standards and Quality (CROSQ) and the Pan 
American Standards Commission (COPANT). The Bureau is the local agent for foreign Standard 
Body, the American Standards for Testing and Measurement (ASTM). The Bureau also serves as 
the enquiry point for th e World Trade Organization (WTO) on matters pertaining to the Technical 
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement and is the Contact Point for Codex Alimentarius.  
 
In accordance with good practice for the adoption and application of Standards, Dominica National 
Standards are subject to periodic review every five years.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
iii 
  
 
 
 
Amendments  
 
 
 
Amendment No.   
Date of Issue   
Text (s) Affected  
   
 
   
iv 
 DOMINICA NATIONAL STANDARD  
DETERMINATION OF HOST STATUS OF FRUIT TO FRUIT FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)  
 
TECHNICAL COMMITTEE – Food Products, Processes and Services (FPPS)  
 
 
ORGANIZATION  REPRESENTIVE (S)  
(Alternate)  
Dominica Association of Industry and Commerce  Alleyna Robin  
Dominica Export Import Agency  Lloyd Pascal  
Sharon Rolle  
Dominica Manufacturers Association  Linvor Ambo  
Dominica State College  Sharon Allicock Joseph  
Valda Joseph  
IICA  Kent Coipel  
Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries  Anna Mary Seraphine  
Ministry of Trade, Energy, and Employment  Margaret Roudette  
Jackie Xavier  
TECHNICAL SECRETARY  
Mr. Kyle James  
Technical Officer, DBOS  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
1 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
0.0 FOREWORD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 2 
INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  3 
Scope  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
References  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
Definition s ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
Outline of Requirements  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 
BACKGROUND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  4 
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  5 
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
1. Natural Host Status Determination Using Surveillance by Fruit Sampling  ................................ .........  8 
2. Host Status Determination Using Field Trials under Semi -natural Conditions  ................................ ... 9 
2.1 Fruit sampling  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
2.2 Fruit flies  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 
2.3 Fruit  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  10 
2.4 Controls  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 
2.5 Field trial desi gn................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  10 
3. Fruit Handling for Fruit Fly Development and Emergence  ................................ ...............................  12 
4. Data Analysis  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 12 
5. Record -Keeping and Publication  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  12 
APPENDIX 1: Bibliography  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
2 
  
0.0 FOREWORD  
 
0.1. This Dominica National Standard was adopted by the Bureau of Standards (the 
Bureau) of the Commonwealth of Dominica on  _____________  after the draft was 
finalized by Technical Committee for Food Products, Processes and Services (FPPS) 
and has been approved by the  Minister responsible for the Bureau.  
 
0.2. This Standard became effective as a Compulsor y Standard on the date notified by the 
Minister with responsibility for the Bureau of Standards in a Notice published in the 
Commonwealth of Dominica Official Gazette on ________________.  
 
0.3. This standard is an identical adoption of International Standards f or Phytosanitary 
Measures (ISPM) 37: 2016 - Determination of host status of fruit to fruit flies 
(Tephritidae)  
 
0.4. Acknowledgement is given to International Plant Protection Convention  (IPPC ) for 
providing permission to adopt ISPM 37: 201 6.  
 
0.5. Although the editorial style and layout of the ISPM 37: 201 6 are not in conformity 
with that of Dominica's Standards, the identical adoption has been approved as suitable 
for publication as a Dominica National Standard.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
3 
  
INTRODUCTION   
Scope   
This standard provides guidelines for the determination of host status of fruit to fruit flies 
(Tephritidae) and describes three categories of host status of fruit to fruit flies.   
Fruit as referred to in this standard covers fruit in the botanical sense,  including such fruits that are 
sometimes called vegetables (e.g. tomato and melon).   
This standard includes methodologies for surveillance under natural conditions and field trials 
under semi -natural conditions that should be used to determine the host s tatus of undamaged fruit 
to fruit flies for cases where host status is uncertain. This standard does not address requirements 
to protect plants against the introduction and spread of fruit flies.   
References   
The present standard refers to International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPMs). 
ISPMs are available  on  the  International  Phytosanitary  Portal  (IPP)  at 
 https://www.ippc.int/core activities/standards -setting/ispms .  
Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of ISPM 26 ( Establishment of pest free areas for fr uit flies 
(Tephritidae) ) also apply to this standard.   
Definitions   
Definitions of phytosanitary terms used in this standard can be found in ISPM 5 ( Glossary of 
phytosanitary terms ). In addition to the definitions in ISPM 5, in this standard the followin g 
definitions apply:   
host status (of fruit to a fruit fly)  Classification of a plant species or cultivar as being a 
natural host, conditional host or non -host for a fruit fly 
species  
natural host (of fruit to a fruit fly)  A plant species or cultivar that has been scientifically 
found to be infested by the target fruit fly species under 
natural conditions and able to sustain its development 
to viable adults  
conditional host (of fruit  to a fruit fly)  A plant species or cultivar that is not a natural host but 
has been scientifically demonstrated to be infested by 
the target fruit fly species and able to sustain its 
development to viable adults as concluded from the 
semi -natural field c onditions set out in this standard  
non-host (of fruit to a fruit fly)   
  A plant species or cultivar that has not been found to 
be infested by the target fruit fly species or is not able 
to sustain its development to viable adults under 
natural conditions or under the semi -natural field 
conditions set out in this standard  
   
4 
 Outline of Requirements  
This standard describes requirements for determining the host status of a particular fruit to a 
particular fruit fly species and designates three categories of host status: natural host, conditional 
host and nonhost.   
Requirements  for determining host status include:   
- accurate identification of the fruit fly species, test fruit and, for field trials, control fruit from 
a known natural host   
- specification of parameters for adult and larval fruit fly surveillance and experimental design 
under semi -natural field conditions ( i.e., field cages, greenhouses or bagged fruit -bearing 
branches) to determine host status and describe the conditions of the fruit (including 
physiological) to be evaluated   
- observation of fruit fly  survival at each stage of its development   
- establishment of procedures for holding and handling the fruit for host status determination  
-  evaluation of experimental data and interpretation of results.   
 
BACKGROUND   
Fruit flies are economically important  pests and the application of phytosanitary measures is often 
required to allow movement of their host fruit in trade (ISPM 26; ISPM 35 ( Systems approach for 
pest risk management of fruit flies (Tephritidae) )). The host status of fruit is an important elem ent 
of pest risk analysis (PRA) (ISPM 2 ( Framework for pest risk analysis ); ISPM 11 ( Pest risk 
analysis for quarantine pests )). Categories of and procedures for determining host status should 
therefore be harmonized.   
It is important to note that host sta tus may change over time because of changes in biological 
conditions.   
When host status is uncertain there is a particular need to provide harmonized guidance to national 
plant protection organizations (NPPOs) for determining the host status of fruit to f ruit flies. 
Historical evidence, pest interception records and scientific literature generally may provide 
sufficient information on host status, without the need for additional larval field surveillance or 
field trials. However, historical records and pub lished reports may sometimes be unreliable, for 
example:   
- Fruit fly species and plant species or cultivars may have been incorrectly identified and 
reference specimens may not be available for verification.   
- Collection records may be incorrect or dubious  (e.g., host status based on (1) the catch from 
a trap placed on a fruit plant; (2) damaged fruit; (3) simply finding larvae inside fruit; or (4) 
cross -contamination of samples).   
- Important details may have been omitted ( e.g., cultivar, stage of maturity,  physical condition 
of fruit at the time of collection, sanitary condition of the orchard).   
- Development of larvae to viable adults may not have been verified.   
Protocols and comprehensive trials to determine fruit fly host status have been documented in the 
scientific literature. However, inconsistencies in terminology and methodology contribute to  
5 
 variations in the determination of fruit fly host status. Harmoni zation of terminology, protocols 
and evaluation criteria for the determination of fruit fly host status will promote consistency among 
countries and scientific communities.   
Surveillance by fruit sampling is the most reliable method to determine natural h ost status. 
Surveillance of natural infestation by fruit sampling does not interfere with the natural behaviour 
of fruit flies and takes into account high levels of variability in the fruit, fruit fly behaviour and 
periods of activity. Fruit sampling inclu des the collection of fruit and the rearing of fruit flies on 
it to determine if the fruit is a host to the fruit fly ( i.e., if the fruit can sustain fruit fly development 
to viable adults).   
Field trials under semi -natural conditions allow fruit flies to  exhibit natural oviposition behaviour, 
and because the fruit remains attached to the plant it does not degrade rapidly during the trials. 
However, field trials under semi -natural conditions can be resource -intensive and may be 
compromised by environmental  variables.   
Results of field trials carried out in a certain area may be extrapolated to comparable areas if the 
target fruit fly species and the physiological condition of the fruit are similar, so that fruit fly host 
status determined in one area does not need to be repeated in a separate but similar area.   
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS   
Determining to which of the three categories of host status (natural host, conditional host and 
nonhost) a fruit belongs can be done through the following steps, as is outline d in the flow chart 
(Figure 1):   
A. When existing biological or historical information provides sufficient evidence that the fruit 
does not support infestation1 and development to viable adults, no further surveys or field 
trials should be required and the plant should be categorized as a non -host.   
B. When existing biological and historical information provides sufficient evidence that the fruit 
supports infestation and development to viable adults, no further surveys or field trials should 
be required and th e plant should be categorized as a natural host.   
C. When existing biological and historical information is inconclusive, appropriate field 
surveillance by fruit sampling or field trials should be used to determine host status. 
Surveillance and trials may le ad to one of the following results:   
C1. If infestation with development to viable adults is found after field surveillance by fruit 
sampling, the  plant should be categorized as a natural host.   
C2.  If no infestation is found after field surveillance by fruit sampling, and no further information 
indicates that the fruit has the potential to become infested, taking into consideration the 
conditions in which the commodity is known to be traded, such as physiological condition, 
cultivar and stage of maturity, the plant may be categorized as a non -host.   
 
1 Hereinafter, “infestation” refers to infestation of a fruit by a target fruit fly species.   
6 
 C3.  If no infestation is found after field surveillance by fruit sampling, but available biological 
or historical information indicates that the fruit h as the potential to become infested, 
additional field trials under semi -natural conditions may be needed to assess whether the 
target fruit fly can develop to viable adults on the particular fruit species or cultivar.   
C3a.   If the target fruit fly specie s does not develop to viable adults, the plant should be categorized 
as a non -host.   
C3b.  If the target fruit fly species develops to viable adults, the plant should be categorized as a  
conditional host.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
7 
 Figure 1.  Steps for the determination of host status of fruit to fruit flies.   
  
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS   
Host status may be determined from historical production records or from trade or interception 
data indicating natural infestations. Where historical data do not provide clear determination of 
 
8 
 host status, surveillance by fruit sampling should be conducted  to gather evidence of natural 
infestations and development to viable adults, or field trials under semi -natural conditions may be 
required. In cases where host status has not been scientifically determined by surveillance, or when 
there is a particular ne ed to determine if a fruit is a conditional host or a non -host, trials conducted 
under semi -natural field conditions may be required.   
Artificial conditions are inherent in laboratory tests in which fruit flies are presented with harvested 
fruit that undergoes rapid physiological changes and thereby may become more susceptible to 
infestation. The detection of infestation in laboratory tes ts for the determination of host status may 
therefore be misleading. In addition, it has been widely documented that under artificial 
conditions, females of polyphagous species will lay eggs in almost any fruit presented to them 
and, in most cases, the lar vae will develop into viable adults. Therefore, laboratory tests may be 
sufficient for demonstrating non -host status, but are inappropriate for demonstrating natural or 
conditional host status.   
The following elements are important considerations in plann ing field trials:   
- the identity of the plant species (including cultivars where appropriate) and the target fruit 
fly species   
- the physical and physiological variability of the fruit in the production area   
- past chemical usage in the fruit production ar ea   
- target fruit fly incidence over the entire production area, and relevant harvest and export 
periods   
- relevant information, including literature and records, regarding host status of the fruit and 
fruit fly species, and a critical review of such infor mation   
- the origin and rearing status of the fruit fly colony to be used   
- known natural host species and cultivars to be used as controls   
- separate field trials, where appropriate, for each fruit fly species for which determination of 
host status is req uired   
- separate field trials for each cultivar of the fruit if cultivar differences are the purported 
source of host variability to infestation   
- the placing of field trials in the fruit production areas  
- compliance with sound statistical practice.   
 
1. Natural Host Status Determination Using Surveillance by Fruit Sampling   
Fruit sampling is the most reliable method to determine natural host status. The status of a natural 
host can be determined on the basis of confirmation of natural infestation and develo pment to 
viable adults by sampling fruit during the harvest period.   
Fruit samples should be representative of the range of production areas and environmental 
conditions, as well as of physiological and physical stages.    
9 
 2. Host Status Determination Using Field Trials under Semi -natural Conditions   
The objective of field tri als is to determine host status under specified conditions of a fruit that has 
been determined not to be a natural host. Trials may include the use of field cages, greenhouses 
(including glass, plastic and screen houses) and bagged fruit -bearing branches.   
The emergence of a viable adult in any one replicate of a field trial under semi -natural conditions 
indicates that the fruit is a conditional host.   
The following subsections outline elements that should be taken into account when designing field 
trials .   
2.1 Fruit sampling   
The following requirements apply to fruit sampling in field trials:   
- Where possible, sampling should target fruit suspected of being infested. Otherwise, 
sampling protocols should be based on the principles of randomness and replicati on and be 
appropriate for any statistical analysis performed.   
- Period of time, the number of repetitions per growing season and the number of replicates 
should account for the variability of target fruit flies and fruit over time and over the 
production a rea. They should also account for early and late harvest conditions and be 
representative of the proposed area from where the fruit will be moved. The number and 
weight of the fruit required and replicates per trial to determine effectiveness, and 
appropri ate confidence level, should be specified.   
2.2 Fruit flies   
The following requirements apply to operational procedures pertaining to the fruit flies used in 
field trials:   
- Taxonomic identification of the fruit flies used for the field trials should be perf ormed and 
voucher specimens be preserved.   
- Basic information on target fruit fly species, including normal period of development and 
known hosts in the specific production area, should be compiled.   
- The use of wild populations for the field trials is des irable. If wild flies cannot be obtained 
in sufficient numbers, the colony used should not be older than five generations at the 
initiation of the trials, whenever possible. The fruit fly population may be maintained on 
substrate, but the generation to be used in the trials should be reared on the natural host to 
ensure normal oviposition behaviour. Flies used in experimental replicates should all come 
from the same population and generation ( i.e., cohort).   
- The fruit fly colony should originate from the s ame area as the target fruit whenever possible.   
- Pre-oviposition, oviposition and mating periods should be determined before the field trials 
so that mated female flies are exposed to the fruit at the peak of their reproductive potential.   
- The age of the  adult female and male flies should be recorded on the mating date and at the 
beginning of the field trials.   
- The number of mated female flies required per fruit should be determined according to fruit 
size, female fecundity and field trial conditions. The number of fruit flies per replicate trial  
10 
 should be determined according to fruit fly biology, amount of frui t to be exposed and other 
field trial conditions.   
- The exposure time of the fruit to the target fruit fly species should be based on fruit fly 
oviposition behaviour.   
- An individual female fly should be used only once.   
- The number of adults dying during the field trials should be recorded and dead fruit flies 
should be replaced with live adults of the same population and generation ( i.e., cohort). High 
adult mortality may indicate unfavourable conditions ( e.g., excessive temperature) or 
contamination of field trial fruit ( e.g., residual pesticides). In such cases, the trials should be 
repeated under more favourable conditions.   
In repeated field trials, fruit flies should be of a similar physiological age and h ave been reared 
under the same conditions.   
2.3 Fruit   
The following requirements apply to the fruit used in field trials. The fruit should be:   
- of the same species and cultivar as the fruit to be moved   
- from the same production area, or an area representa tive of it, as the fruit to be moved   
- practically free from pesticides deleterious to fruit flies and from baits, dirt, other fruit flies 
and pests   
- free from any mechanical or natural damage   
- of a specified commercial grade regarding colour, size and p hysiological condition   
- at an appropriate, specified stage of maturity ( e.g., dry weight or sugar content).   
2.4 Controls   
Fruit of known natural hosts at known stage of maturity are required as controls for all field trials. 
These may be of different speci es or genera from the target fruit species. Fruit should be free of 
prior infestation ( e.g., by bagging or from a pest free area). Fruit flies used in controls and 
experimental replicates (including control) should all come from the same population and 
generation ( i.e., cohort).   
Controls are used to:   
- verify that female flies are sexually mature, mated and exhibiting normal oviposition 
behaviour   
- indicate the level of infestation that may occur in a natural host   
- indicate the time frame for development to the adult stage under the field trial conditions in 
a natural host   
- confirm that environmental conditions for infestation are appropriate.   
2.5 Field trial design   
For this standard, field trials use field cages, greenhouses or bagged fruit -bearing branches. Trials 
should be appropriate for evaluating how the physical and physiological condition of the fruit may 
affect host status.    
11 
 Fruit flies ar e released into large mesh field cages that enclose whole fruit -bearing plants or mesh 
bags that enclose the parts of plants with the fruit. Alternatively, fruit -bearing plants may be placed 
in greenhouses into which flies are released. The fruit -bearing p lants can be grown in the 
enclosures or be introduced as potted plants for the trials. It is important to note that because female 
fruit flies are artificially confined within the specific enclosure under observation, they may be 
forced to lay eggs in the fruit of a conditional host.   
Field trials should be conducted under conditions appropriate for fruit fly activity, especially 
oviposition, as follows:   
- Field cages and greenhouses should be of an appropriate size and a design to ensure 
confinement of th e adult flies and trial plants, allow adequate airflow and allow conditions 
that facilitate natural oviposition behaviour.   
- Adults should be provided with satisfactory and sufficient food and water.   
- Environmental conditions should be optimal and be reco rded during the period of the field 
trials.   
- Male flies may be kept in cages or greenhouses with the female flies if it is beneficial for 
encouraging oviposition.   
- Natural enemies to the target fruit fly species should be removed from the cages before 
initiating the trials and re -entry should be prevented.   
- Cages should be secured from other consumers of fruits ( e.g., birds and monkeys).   
- For controls, fruit from known natural hosts can be hung on branches of plants (not on the 
branches with test fruit) . Controls must be separated from test fruits (in separate field cages, 
greenhouses or bagged fruit -bearing branches) to ensure the trial is not a choice test.   
- The test fruit should remain naturally attached to plants and may be exposed to the fruit flie s 
in field cages, bags or greenhouses.   
- The plants should be grown under conditions that exclude as far as possible any interference 
from chemicals deleterious to fruit flies.   
- A replicate should be a bag or cage, preferably on one plant at the experimental unit.   
- Fruit fly mortality should be monitored and recorded and dead flies immediately replaced 
with live flies from the same population and generation ( i.e., cohort) to main tain the same 
fruit fly incidence.   
- The fruit should be grown under commercial conditions or in containers of a size that allows 
normal plant and fruit development.   
   
12 
 - After the designated exposure period for oviposition, the fruit should be remov ed from the 
plant and weighed and the number and weight of fruit recorded.   
The sample size to be used to achieve the confidence level required should be pre -determined using 
scientific references.   
3. Fruit Handling for Fruit Fly Development and Emergence   
Fruit collected under natural conditions (surveillance by fruit sampling) a nd semi -natural 
conditions (field trials), as well as control fruit, should be kept until larval development is 
complete. This period may vary with temperature and host status. Fruit handling and holding 
conditions should maximize fruit fly survival and be  specified in the sampling protocol or 
experimental design of the field trial.   
Fruit should be kept in an insect -proof facility or container under conditions that ensure pupal 
survival, including:   
- appropriate temperature and relative humidity  
- suitable pupation medium.   
Furthermore, conditions should facilitate accurate collection of larvae and pupae, and viable adults 
emerging from the fruit.   
Data to be recorded include:   
- daily physical conditions ( e.g., temperature, relative humidity) in t he fruit holding facility   
- dates and numbers of larvae and pupae collected from the test fruit and the control fruit, 
noting that:  
o the medium may be sieved at the end of the holding period   
o at the end of the holding period, the fruit should be dissected before being discarded, 
to    determine the presence of live and dead larvae or pupae; depending on the stage 
of fruit decay, it may be necessary to transfer the larvae to an adequate pupation 
medium  
o all or a subsample of pupae should be weighed and abnormalities recorded   
- emergence dates and numbers of all adults by species, including any abnormal adult flies.   
4. Data Analysis   
Data from larval surveillance and field trials may be analysed quantitati vely to determine, for 
example:   
-  levels of infestation ( e.g., number of larvae per fruit, number of larvae per kilogram of fruit, 
percentage of infested fruit) at a specific confidence level  
-  development time of larvae and pupae, and number of viabl e adults   
- percentage of adult emergence.   
 
5. Record -Keeping and Publication   
The NPPO should keep appropriate records of larval field surveillance and field trials to determine 
host status, including:    
13 
 - scientific name of the target fruit fly   
- scientif ic name of the plant species or name of the cultivar   
- location of the production area of the fruit (including geographic coordinates)   
- location of voucher specimens of the target fruit fly (to be kept in an official collection)   
- origin and rearing of th e fruit fly colony used for the field trials   
- physical and physiological condition of the fruit tested for infestation by fruit flies   
- experimental design, trials conducted, dates, locations   
- raw data, statistical calculations and interpretation of results   
- key scientific references used   
- additional information, including photographs, that may be specific to the fruit fly, the fruit 
or host status.   
 
Records should be made available to the NPPO of the importing country upon request.   
Research should, as far as possible, be peer reviewed a nd published in a scientific journal or 
otherwise made available.   
   
14 
  
This appendix is for reference purposes only and is not a prescriptive part of the standard.   
APPENDIX 1: Bibliography   
Aluja, M., Diaz -Fleisher, F. & Arredondo, J.  2004. Nonhost stat us of commercial Persea 
americana “Hass” to Anastrepha ludens , Anastrepha obliqua , Anastrepha serpentina , and 
Anastrepha striata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Mexico. Journal of Economic Entomology , 97: 
293–309.   
Aluja, M. & Mangan, R.L.  2008. Fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) host status determination: 
Critical conceptual and methodological considerations. Annual Review of Entomology , 53: 
473–502.  
Aluja, M., Pérez -Staples, D., Macías -Ordóñez, R., Piñero, J., McPheron, B. & Hernández -
Ortiz, V.  2003. Nonhost status of Citrus sinensis cultivar Valencia and C. paradisi cultivar 
Ruby Red to Mexican Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic 
Entomology , 96: 1693 –1703.   
APPPC RSPM 4.  2005. Guidelines for the confirmation  of non -host status of fruit and vegetables 
to Tephritid fruit flies . RAP Publication 2005/27. Bangkok, Asia and Pacific Plant Protection 
Commission.   
Baker, R.T., Cowley, J.M., Harte, D.S. & Frampton, E.R.  1990. Development of a maximum 
pest limit for fr uit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in produce imported into New Zealand. Journal 
of Economic Entomology , 83: 13 –17.   
Cowley, J.M., Baker, R.T. & Harte, D.S.  1992. Definition and determination of host status for 
multivoltine fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) species. Journal of Economic Entomology , 85: 
312– 317.   
FAO/IAEA.  2013. Trapping manual for area -wide fruit fly programmes . Vienna, Joint FAO/IAEA 
Division. 46 pp.   
FAO/IAEA/USDA.  2014. Product quality control for sterile mass -reared and released tephritid 
fruit flies.  Version 6.0. Vienna, IAEA. 164 pp.   
Fitt, G.P.  1986. The influence of a shortage of hosts on the specificity of oviposition behaviour in 
species of Dacus  (Diptera: Tephritidae). Physiological Entomology , 11: 133 –143.   
Follett, P.A.  2009. Puncture resistance in “Sharwil” avocado to Oriental fruit fly and 
Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) oviposition. Journal of Economic Entomology , 
102: 921 –926.   
Follett, P.A. & Hennessey, M.K.  2007. Confidence limits and sample size fo r determining 
nonhost status of fruits and vegetables to tephritid fruit flies as a quarantine measure. Journal 
of Economic Entomology , 100: 251 –257.   
Grové T., de Beer, M.S. & Joubert, P.H . 2010. Developing a systems approach for 
Thaumatotibia leucotreta  (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on “Hass” avocado in South Africa. 
Journal of Economic Entomology , 103: 1112 –1128.   
Hennessey, M.K . 2007. Guidelines for the determination and designation of host status of a 
commodity for fruit flies (Tephritidae). Orlando, FL , USDA -CPHST.    
15 
 NAPPO RSPM No. 30.  2008. Guidelines for the determination and designation of host status of a 
fruit or vegetable for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae).  Ottawa, North American Plant 
Protection Organization.   
NASS  (National Agriculture Secu rity Service). 1991. Specification for determination of fruit fly 
host status as a treatment . Standard 155.02.01.08. Wellington, New Zealand Ministry of 
Agriculture and Fisheries.   
Rattanapun, W., Amornsak, W. & Clarke, A.R.  2009. Bactrocera dorsalis preference for and 
performance on two mango varieties at three stages of ripeness. Entomologia Experimentalis 
et Applicata , 131: 243 –253.   
Santiago, G., Enkerlin, W., Reyes, J. & Ortiz, V.  1993. Ausencia de infestación natural de 
moscas de la fruta (Diptera: Tephritidae) en aguacate “Hass” en Michoacán, México. 
Agrociencia serie Protección Vegetal , 4(3): 349 –357.   
Singer, M.C.  2004. Oviposition preference: Its definition, measurement and correlates, and its use 
in assessing risk of host shifts. In J.M. Cullen , D.T. Briese, W.M. Kriticos, L. Morin & J.K. 
Scott, eds. Proceedings of the XI International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds , 
pp. 235 – 244. Canberra, CSIRO.   
Thomas, D.B.  2004. Hot peppers as a host for the Mexican fruit fly Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: 
Tephritidae). Florida Entomologist , 87: 603 –608.   
van Klinken, R.D.  2000. Host specificity testing: Why do we do it and how can we do it better. In 
R. Van Driesche, T. Heard, A. McClay & R. Reardon, eds. Host -specificity testing of exotic 
arthropo d biological control agents: The biological basis for improvement in safety , pp. 54 –
68. Morgantown, WV, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA Forest Service.   
Willard, H.F., Mason, A.C. & Fullaway, D.T.  1929. Susceptibility of avocados of the Guatemala 
race to attack by the Mediterranean fruit fly in Hawaii. Hawaiian Forester and Agriculturist , 
26: 171 –176.    
16 
  
Dominica Bureau of Standards  
 
Dominica Bureau of Standards is a statutory body established und er the Standards Act No. 4 of 
1999 to establish, promote and maintain Standards for:  
a. Improving goods and services produced or used in Dominica;  
b. Processes and practices for ensuring industrial efficiency and development;  
c. Public and industrial welfare, healt h and safety;  
d. Safeguarding the environment.  
 
The National Standard Council  
 
The National Standard Council (NSC), a fourteen (14) member Council representing various 
interest groups, is appointed by the Minister responsible for the Dominica Bureau of Stand ards 
yearly, to guide the policy decision matters of the Bureau and oversee its financial management. 
The Council is also responsible for the general administrative affairs of the Dominica Bureau of 
Standards.