Eco-Friendly Management of Fruit Flies (Bactrocera spp.) in Guava Orchards Using the Male Annihilation Technique: Impacts on Yield and Fruit Quality

Eco-Friendly Management of Fruit Flies (Bactrocera spp.) in Guava Orchards Using the Male Annihilation Technique: Impacts on Yield and Fruit Quality | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Eco-Friendly Management of Fruit Flies (Bactrocera spp.) in Guava Orchards Using the Male Annihilation Technique: Impacts on Yield and Fruit Quality Prabhjot Kaur, Suman Kumari, Sukhdeep Kaur This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8372551/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Fruit fly infestations by Bactrocera spp. significantly reduce guava ( Psidium guajava ) yield and quality, posing economic challenges for growers in Punjab, India. This study evaluated the efficacy of the Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) using methyl eugenol-based traps across eight guava orchards in Hoshiarpur district, Punjab, India during 2023–2024. MAT-treated orchards showed a significant reduction in fruit fly infestation (18.5%–23.0%) compared to untreated controls (32.7%–38.0%), resulting in up to 43.5% suppression. Treated orchards also recorded higher fruit yields (187.8–205.2 kg/ha) and more marketable fruits (145–160 fruits/tree) than controls. Physico-chemical analyses revealed improved fruit quality in MAT-treated orchards, with higher fruit weight, size, total soluble solids, vitamin C content, and titratable acidity. Regression analysis showed a strong negative correlation between infestation rate and fruit yield, underscoring MAT’s role in reducing economic losses. These findings validate MAT as an effective component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs for guava, offering a cost-efficient and sustainable alternative to chemical controls while supporting long-term productivity and fruit quality in Punjab's guava orchards. Fruit fly Bactrocera spp. Guava Male Annihilation Technique Integrated Pest Management Fruit quality Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Guava ( Psidium guajava L.) is an economically and nutritionally important fruit crop cultivated widely in tropical and subtropical regions. Rich in vitamin C, antioxidants and dietary fiber, guava contributes substantially to human nutrition and health, playing a role in immune support, digestive health and chronic disease prevention (Kumar et al., 2021 ). In Punjab, India, guava is grown on approximately 9.73 thousand hectares with an annual production of 227.29 thousand metric tonnes (Anonymous, 2024 ). Despite its economic value, guava productivity and marketability are severely constrained by infestations of tephritid fruit flies ( Bactrocera spp.), notably B. dorsalis and B. zonata , which cause direct fruit damage, premature drop and post-harvest decay (Singh et al., 2014 ; Singh & Sharma, 2013 ). Infestation not only reduces marketable yields but also degrades physico-chemical traits such as total soluble solids and vitamin C through oxidative and microbial processes, thereby diminishing nutritional value and consumer acceptance (Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019). Globally, fruit flies are estimated to be responsible for 30–40% losses in guava production in affected areas, with substantial economic and quarantine consequences for trade (Badii et al., 2015 ). Conventional management of Bactrocera spp. has relied heavily on broad-spectrum insecticides, raising concerns about residues, non-target impacts and resistance development. As a result, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approaches that reduce pesticide dependency are increasingly promoted. Available IPM components—protein bait sprays, Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) and biological control—each have benefits but also practical limitations: protein baits require frequent re-application and may affect beneficials (Khan et al., 2017 ); SIT demands large infrastructure and is costly for smallholders (Papadopoulos et al., 2024 ); and biological agents can be climate-dependent and require sustained augmentation (Chandana et al., 2023 ). These constraints underscore the need for cost-effective, scalable interventions that can be implemented under heterogeneous smallholder conditions. The Male Annihilation Technique (MAT), which exploits methyl eugenol responsiveness in many Bactrocera species, selectively targets males to disrupt mating and reduce population buildup. MAT has been implemented successfully in multiple cropping systems and regions, often producing substantial reductions in male catches and infestation (Orankanok et al., 2007 ; Sumathi et al., 2019 ; Zhou et al., 2024 ). Case studies from Australia and Brazil further demonstrate MAT’s utility when integrated with orchard sanitation and other IPM components (Dominiak & Fanson, 2020 ; Costa et al., 2025 ). Nevertheless, most published evaluations emphasize trap catch dynamics and male suppression; comparatively few studies quantify the downstream effects of MAT on yield, marketable production and fruit nutritional quality across multiple, heterogeneous field locations. Moreover, some MAT formulations include an insecticidal toxicant (e.g., malathion) to ensure mortality of attracted males, so claims of “eco-friendliness” should be framed relative to reduced overall pesticide input and targeted application rather than complete absence of toxicants. Punjab’s guava orchards experience marked seasonal variation in temperature and rainfall that influences Bactrocera population dynamics and can exacerbate yield and quality losses during monsoon and post-monsoon periods. In this context, a comprehensive evaluation that links MAT-driven population suppression to measurable improvements in yield stability and fruit physico-chemical attributes is essential for robust, evidence-based IPM recommendations at regional scale. Accordingly, this study was conducted across eight guava orchards in Hoshiarpur district (Punjab, India) to (i) evaluate the efficacy of PAU-developed methyl eugenol MAT traps in suppressing Bactrocera spp., (ii) quantify MAT’s impact on fruit yield and marketable production, and (iii) examine relationships between infestation intensity and key physico-chemical attributes (fruit weight, TSS, vitamin C, titratable acidity). By integrating population, yield and quality metrics across multiple locations, the study aims to provide a rigorous assessment of MAT’s role within sustainable IPM for guava. Materials and Methods Study Area and Experimental Design The study was conducted during 2023–2024 across eight guava orchards (variety Allahabad Safeda ) in Hoshiarpur district, Punjab, covering a total area of 2.5 hectares. These locations were selected based on variations in temperature, humidity, and soil characteristics to represent diverse agro-climatic conditions of the district. The study sites included Haveli (Location 1), Pakhowal (Location 2), Khanoor (Location 3), Machhian (Location 4), Khera Kotli (Location 5), Bajwa (Location 6), Bhambowal (Location 7), and Jallowal (Location 8). A randomized block design (RBD) was employed with two treatments: MAT-treated orchards (treated group) and untreated orchards (control group). In each orchard, five randomly selected trees per treatment served as replicates for sampling and data collection. In the MAT-treated orchards, 16 methyl eugenol-based fruit fly traps developed by PAU were installed per acre in early July, with refills every 30 days to ensure continued effectiveness. These traps contained a mixture of methyl eugenol (0.5%) and malathion (0.1%), acting as both an attractant and a toxicant specifically targeting male fruit flies. In contrast, the untreated control orchards followed conventional farmer practices, including insecticide applications and orchard sanitation, but lacked a structured pest management strategy. Assessment of Fruit Fly Infestation To confirm the presence of Bactrocera spp ., each fruit was visually inspected and further verified under an optical microscope in the laboratory. To evaluate infestation levels, weekly fruit sampling (n = 50/treatment) was carried out. Fruits were classified into three categories: infested (showing ovipositional punctures), fallen infested, and healthy. The percentage of infestation was calculated using the following formula: This approach enables precise quantification of infestation levels within the sampled population. A similar methodology, adopted by Kumar (2024), was used for assessing fruit fly infestation in guava orchards, ensuring consistency across studies. The percentage of infested fruits was determined by dividing the number of infested fruits by the total sampled fruits and multiplying by 100, thus providing the infestation rate. At harvest, the total fruit yield (kg/ha) was recorded, and the number of marketable fruits per tree was assessed to evaluate commercial viability. Physico-Chemical Analysis of MAT-treated vs. control fruits Location of the Experiment and Plant Material: The experiment was conducted in the Food & Nutrition Lab, PAU, Ludhiana. Guava fruit of the commercial variety Allahabad Safeda , infested with Bactrocera spp. , were used. These fruits were sourced from eight locations within the Hoshiarpur district. The fruits were harvested based on the indices commonly used by producers in these locations, characterized by firm pulp and the initial color change from dark green to light green (yellowish). A completely randomized design was employed, with the experimental unit consisting of a set of 8 fruits. Each Physico-chemical analysis was performed in triplicate as follows: Fruit Weight (g): It was measured using a portable electronic scale with a precision of 0.01 g. Fruit Length and Equatorial Diameter (mm): They were determined using a digital Vernier caliper. Titratable Acidity (% Citric Acid): It was assessed following the methodology outlined by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1990), with minor modifications. Ten grams of fruit were homogenized with 50 mL of distilled water; from this mixture, 10 mL were neutralized with a 0.1 N NaOH solution using 1% phenolphthalein as the indicator. Total Soluble Solids (°Brix): It was measured using a portable digital refractometer, which operates on a 0-53° scale. Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid): It was estimated using the Tillman method (AOAC, 1990), based on DFI-2,6 dichlorophenol-indophenol. An aliquot of 10 mL was taken from a mixture of 5 g of finely chopped fruit homogenized with 50 mL of oxalic acid. Statistical Analysis The collected data were analyzed using statistical software to determine the significance of differences between treated and control groups. A t-test was conducted for infestation rate, male flies captured, marketable fruits, and fruit yield to compare the means. Pearson’s correlation, t-test, and regression analysis were conducted to evaluate the relationship between fruit fly infestation and meteorological parameters (temperature, humidity, and rainfall). The correlation coefficient (r) was computed to assess the relationship between infestation rate and other parameters. The t-test results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in all measured parameters. A strong negative correlation (r = -0.99564) was observed between infestation rate and fruit yield, indicating that higher infestation rates led to lower yields. Seasonal infestation trends were visualized using scatter plots, regression trendlines, and time-series graphs, providing insights into climatic influences on fruit fly dynamics. The data collected for physico-chemical parameters were analyzed using Student's t-test (P ≤ 0.05) for comparing two groups; MAT-treated vs. control, with SPSS Window version 26, Software, Inc., India. Results Table 1: Effect of Treatment on Fruit Fly Infestation, Male Flies Captured, Marketable Fruits, and Fruit Yield across different locations during 2023 and 2024 Location (Coordinates) Group *Infestation rate (%) *Male Flies capture (Trap/Week) *Marketable Fruits/Tree *Fruit Yield (kg/ha) Reduction in Infestation (%) Location 1 Treated 18.5 ± 1.1 1150 ± 45 160 ± 4.2 205.2 ± 6.0 43.5 Control 32.7 ± 1.4 NA 108 ± 3.5 140.8 ± 5.3 - Location 2 Treated 19.8 ± 1.3 1200 ± 50 155 ± 4.0 198.1 ± 6.1 42.1 Control 33.5 ± 1.5 NA 101 ± 3.6 140.7 ± 5.2 - Location 3 Treated 20.6 ± 1.3 1240 ± 51 151 ± 4.3 192.6 ± 6.2 41.2 Control 35.8 ± 1.6 NA 97 ± 3.4 138.8 ± 5.4 - Location 4 Treated 21.0 ± 1.2 1250 ± 50 150 ± 4.2 195.5 ± 6.1 40.5 Control 35.2 ± 1.6 NA 96 ± 3.3 137.2 ± 5.3 - Location 5 Treated 20.3 ± 1.1 1215 ± 49 154 ± 4.1 196.8 ± 6.0 42.8 Control 34.6 ± 1.4 NA 102 ± 3.5 141.5 ± 5.2 - Location 6 Treated 19.5 ± 1.2 1180 ± 48 157 ± 4.3 200.1 ± 6.3 43.1 Control 33.2 ± 1.5 NA 105 ± 3.6 142.5 ± 5.1 - Location 7 Treated 22.0 ± 1.2 1305 ± 52 148 ± 4.2 191.3 ± 6.0 39.5 Control 36.3 ± 1.6 NA 92 ± 3.4 133.5 ± 5.1 - Location 8 Treated 23.0 ± 1.3 1350 ± 55 145 ± 4.0 187.8 ± 5.8 38.9 Control 38.0 ± 1.7 NA 89 ± 3.2 130.7 ± 5.0 - t-test - 17.75 - 18.72 23.79 - p-value - < 0.05 - < 0.05 < 0.05 - Correlation (r) - -0.99564 - - Strong negative - NA: no traps were used in untreated orchards; thus, male fly capture data was not recorded *Values are Mean ± SE Results Impact of MAT on Fruit Fly Infestation and Population Suppression The Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) significantly reduced fruit fly infestation across all experimental locations, with treated orchards showing lower infestation levels (18.5%–23.0%) compared to untreated orchards (32.7%–38.0%) (p < 0.05) (Table 1). The highest reduction (43.5%) was observed in Haveli, followed by Bajwa (43.1%) and Khera Kotli (42.8%), confirming MAT’s effectiveness. High male fruit fly captures in MAT-treated orchards (1150–1350 flies/trap/week) indicated successful reproductive suppression, with Jallowal (1350 flies/trap/week) and Bhambowal (1305 flies/trap/week) recording the highest captures. Statistical analysis further confirmed significant differences (p < 0.05) in infestation rate, marketable fruits, and fruit yield, with a strong negative correlation (r = -0.99564) indicating that higher infestation rates led to lower yields. These findings align with Zhou et al., (2024), who reported a 42% reduction in fruit fly populations following MAT deployment. Unlike chemical control methods (e.g., malathion spraying), which require frequent applications and pose risks of pesticide resistance and residue accumulation, MAT provides season-long suppression with a one-time setup cost. The statistical significance (p < 0.05) underscores MAT’s reliability in guava pest management and its potential integration into broader Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies for sustainable pest control. Influence of MAT on Yield and Marketability MAT-treated orchards recorded significantly higher marketable fruit production (145–160 fruits/tree) compared to untreated orchards (89–108 fruits/tree) (p < 0.05), demonstrating its role in enhancing guava quality and commercial value. The highest marketable fruit count (160 fruits/tree) was observed at Haveli, whereas the lowest among treated orchards was recorded at Jallowal (145 fruits/tree). The overall fruit yield in treated orchards ranged from 187.8 to 205.2 kg/ha, whereas untreated orchards exhibited significantly lower yields (130.7–141.5 kg/ha) (p < 0.05) (Figure 1). The highest yield increase was noted at Haveli (205.2 kg/ha), highlighting the substantial economic advantage of MAT adoption. These results align with the findings of Sumathi et al., (2019), who reported 30–50% improvements in fruit yield following MAT application in tropical orchards. By enhancing fruit retention and marketability, MAT significantly reduces post-harvest losses, ensuring greater profitability for farmers. The bar chart illustrates the significant impact of the Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) on guava yield across different locations. Treated orchards consistently exhibited higher yields (187.8–205.2 kg/ha) compared to untreated ones (130.7–142.5 kg/ha), with the highest yield recorded at Haveli (205.2 kg/ha). This visual comparison reinforces the effectiveness of MAT in reducing fruit fly infestation, leading to improved fruit retention and marketability. The clear yield gap between treated and untreated orchards highlights MAT’s economic benefits and its potential as a sustainable pest management strategy. Regression Analysis: Impact of Fruit Fly Infestation on Guava Yield The regression analysis (R² = 0.92, p < 0.01) demonstrates a strong negative correlation between fruit fly infestation and guava yield, indicating that increased pest pressure significantly reduces productivity (Figure 2: Regression Analysis of Fruit Fly Infestation vs. Fruit Yield). The regression equation y=−3.973x+277.3 shows a strong negative correlation (R 2 =0.991) between infestation rate (%) and fruit yield (kg/ha) . The slope (-3.973) indicates that for every 1% increase in infestation, fruit yield decreases by 3.973 kg/ha . The intercept (277.3) suggests that at 0% infestation, the predicted yield is 277.3 kg/ha . This high R 2 value means 99.1% of fruit yield variation is explained by infestation rate , emphasizing the significant impact of pest infestation on crop production. The Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) effectively suppressed infestation (18.5–23.0% in treated vs. 32.7–38.0% in untreated plots), resulting in significantly higher marketable yields (p < 0.01). These findings align with previous studies by Drew et al., (2007) and Manrakhan et al., (2021) , and reinforce the role of MAT in mitigating economic losses. Moreover, comparative yield data across locations validate the necessity of pest management in improving orchard performance. Integrating MAT into broader Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, including sanitation, biological control, and selective insecticide use, is essential for sustainable fruit fly suppression. Further research should assess the economic viability and long-term efficacy of MAT under varying climatic conditions. The seasonal trend of fruit fly infestation (Figure 3: Correlation between Weather Parameters and Fruit Fly Infestation) indicates peak pest pressure during July and August, coinciding with increased rainfall and high temperatures. As post-monsoon rainfall declines, infestation levels also drop, emphasizing the strong influence of weather parameters on pest dynamics. Interestingly, the observed negative correlation between relative humidity and fruit fly infestation can be attributed to several ecological and behavioral factors. High relative humidity, particularly during peak monsoon periods, is often associated with heavy rainfall, which can disrupt the fruit fly life cycle by washing away eggs and larvae from fruit surfaces and soil. Moreover, extended wet conditions reduce adult fly activity, limit mating opportunities, and make fruits less suitable for oviposition due to fungal and bacterial growth. This pattern aligns with the findings of Chandra et al. (2022) in their study "Weather-Based Fruit Fly Population Dynamics Prediction Model for the Mid-Hills of Eastern Himalayan Region of India," which demonstrated how meteorological conditions could be effectively used to predict infestation peaks and guide integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for sustainable fruit production. Implications for Integrated Pest Management (IPM) The findings highlight MAT as a cost-effective, environmentally friendly alternative to chemical control, significantly reducing infestation while enhancing yield. The study strongly supports MAT’s integration into IPM programs, combining orchard sanitation and biological control for long-term sustainability (Abbas et al., 2021). Future research should explore MAT’s economic feasibility and its synergistic potential with other IPM components. Table 2: Comparative analysis of Physico-chemical parameters of control and MAT-treated groups Treatment FW (gm) FL (cm) FB (cm) TSS (%) VC (mg/100g pulp) TA (%) MAT-Treated 88 5.4 5.8 11 218 0.5 Control 62.8 4.8 4.6 9.9 143.9 0.2 T-value 10.2 4.5 8.6 8.06 6.53 6.74 P Value < .00001* .000497* < .00001* < .00001* .000013* < .00001* FW= fruit weight; FL= fruit length; FB= fruit breadth; TSS = total soluble solids; VC = vitamin C; TA = titratable acidity *Significant at P < 0.05 level NS Non-Significant Impact of MAT Treatment on Physico-Chemical Traits of Guava Fruits The mean values for control versus MAT-treated groups (Table 2) showed notable differences across various parameters. Control group had a lower fruit weight (62.8 gm) compared to MAT-treated group (88 gm). Similarly, control fruits had shorter fruit length (4.8 cm) and fruit breadth (4.6 cm) than MAT-treated group (5.4 cm and 5.8 cm, respectively). Additionally, control group exhibited reduced TSS (9.9%) compared to the MAT-treated group (11%), lower vitamin C content (143.9 mg/100g) versus MAT-treated group (218 mg/100g), and decreased TA (0.2%) compared to MAT-treated group (0.5%). These differences were statistically significant, as indicated by the p-values (all < 0.05), suggesting that infestation negatively impacts both the physical and biochemical properties of the fruits (Table 2). Discussion The present study demonstrated a significant reduction in fruit fly infestation (64.5%) and a corresponding yield increase (18.7%) in MAT-treated guava orchards across eight locations in Punjab. These results confirm the potential of MAT as an effective, sustainable, and eco-friendly strategy for fruit fly management. Our findings align with those of Maciel et al., ( 2017 ), who reported a 48% decline in Anastrepha infestations in Brazilian guava orchards, and Dominiak and Fanson ( 2020 ), who documented the successful eradication of Bactrocera tryoni outbreaks in Australia when MAT was combined with orchard sanitation. Moreover, this study supports prior work by Zhou et al., ( 2024 ); Singh et al., ( 2014 ); Dominiak & Fanson ( 2020 ), emphasizing the efficacy of male-targeting techniques for population suppression across diverse agro-climatic conditions. Compared to broad-spectrum insecticides, MAT offers species specificity, significantly reducing environmental contamination and preserving beneficial insect populations (Akter et al., 2017 ; Abbas et al., 2021 ). Its integration into IPM programs aligns well with modern eco-friendly pest management frameworks (Hussain et al., 2022 ), particularly when combined with complementary cultural practices such as orchard sanitation and host plant resistance (Souder et al., 2020; Reynolds et al., 2016 ). In agreement with previous studies (Hussain et al., 2022 ; Vargas et al., 2010 ), our findings indicate that higher trap captures in MAT-treated orchards correlated with reduced oviposition rates, leading to lower infestation levels and improved fruit retention. Consequently, fruit quality improved by minimizing microbial contamination and enzymatic degradation, corroborating earlier observations by Verghese et al., ( 2016 ) and Khan et al., ( 2005 ). From an economic perspective, MAT-treated orchards in this study achieved higher marketable yields and superior fruit quality, reinforcing its viability as a cost-effective alternative to chemical insecticides. The observed cost-benefit advantage (₹2,500–₹3,000 per acre for MAT vs. ₹5,500–₹6,500 per acre for insecticide-based programs) mirrors earlier findings by Manoukis et al., ( 2019 ) and Vargas et al., ( 2010 ), who demonstrated long-term economic gains associated with MAT adoption. Furthermore, the significant correlation between climatic factors and fruit fly infestation levels observed in this study underlines the importance of seasonally adaptive pest control strategies, as previously emphasized by Vargas et al., ( 2000 ) and Chandra et al., ( 2022 ). Expanding MAT applications beyond guava to other economically important fruit crops such as mango, citrus, peach, pear, plum, and papaya offers substantial potential to amplify its impact in horticultural pest management. Successful suppression of fruit flies using methyl eugenol-based traps has already been reported in peach (Singh & Sharma, 2012 ) and pear (Singh et al., 2014 ) orchards in Punjab, while large-scale adoption in Australia and Brazil further highlights MAT’s adaptability to varied agro-climatic settings (Maciel et al., 2017 ; Dominiak & Fanson, 2020 ). Additionally, integrating MAT with baiting and biological control methods, including parasitoids and entomopathogenic fungi, has shown promise in enhancing fruit fly suppression (Drew et al., 2007 ; Manrakhan et al., 2021 ). To maximize its benefits, promoting MAT adoption through farmer training, policy incentives, and government-supported extension programs will be critical. Advances in MAT technology, such as improved attractant formulations and automated trap deployment systems, are poised to further enhance efficiency and scalability. As climate change continues to shift pest dynamics globally, future research should prioritize the long-term evaluation of MAT’s effects on fruit fly behavior, resistance evolution, and ecological interactions (Chandra et al., 2022 ; Vargas et al., 2000 ). By integrating MAT within climate-resilient pest management frameworks, sustainable and profitable fruit production can be achieved on both regional and international scales. Effect of MAT-treatment on Physico-chemical parameters of guava fruits as compared to control The findings of this study indicate that the MAT treatment had a significant positive impact on various fruit quality parameters when compared to the control group. The mean fruit weight was substantially higher in the MAT-treated group compared to the control group. This suggests that the application of MAT contributed to improved fruit development, owing to enhanced nutrient uptake and reduced detrimental effects of infestation (Lello et al., 2023 ).In terms of fruit morphology, the MAT-treated group exhibited greater fruit length and fruit breadth compared to the control group. These findings align with previous studies (Aragon et al., 2015; Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019) suggesting that fruit size is directly influenced by hormonal regulation, nutrient allocation, and pest management strategies. The increased dimensions in MAT-treated fruits indicate that the intervention may have contributed to improved physiological growth and structural integrity (Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019). In the present study, the biochemical composition of the fruits also demonstrated notable differences between the two groups. The TSS content was significantly higher in the MAT-treated group compared to the control group, suggesting enhanced sugar accumulation. This could be attributed to reduced metabolic stress and optimized physiological processes in the treated fruits. Similarly, the vitamin C content was significantly greater in the MAT-treated group compared to the control group. Given that vitamin C degradation is often associated with oxidative stress and enzymatic activity (Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019; Doseděl et al., 2021 ), the lower vitamin C content in the control group may be linked to increased cellular damage caused by infestation. Additionally, the TA levels were notably higher in the MAT-treated group than in the control group, indicating better retention of organic acids, which play a crucial role in maintaining fruit flavor and postharvest quality (Zhang; Jiang & Zhang, 2023). The statistically significant differences observed across all these parameters (p < 0.05) highlight the adverse effects of infestation on fruit development and quality, while underscoring the efficacy of MAT treatment in mitigating these impacts. Overall, these findings along with previous research (Aragon et al., 2015; Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019), reinforce the importance of effective pest management strategies in maintaining and enhancing fruit quality. The observed improvements in fruit weight, size, and biochemical attributes suggest that MAT treatment is a viable approach to enhancing both the commercial value and nutritional composition of the fruits. Conclusion The successful implementation of the Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) using methyl eugenol-based PAU fruit fly traps significantly reduced fruit fly infestations in guava orchards, leading to higher yields and improved fruit quality. Compared to traditional farmer practices, MAT-treated orchards experienced up to a 43.5% reduction in infestation and a notable increase in marketable fruit yield. The adoption of this eco-friendly pest management approach not only enhances guava production but also preserves its nutritional value, ensuring a safer and healthier option for consumers. Given its cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and scalability, MAT presents a viable alternative to chemical insecticides, thereby supporting sustainable agriculture, improved farmer livelihoods, and public health. To maximize its impact, policy-level interventions—such as government subsidies, farmer training programs, and integration into national pest management guidelines—should be encouraged. Additionally, incorporating MAT into broader Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies can further enhance food security while minimizing environmental impact and promoting long-term pest control sustainability. Infestation significantly reduces the physical characteristics (weight, length, and breadth) and biochemical properties (TSS, vitamin C content, and titratable acidity) of fruits, highlighting the detrimental effects of infestation on overall fruit quality. Declarations Funding statement This research received no specific grant from any funding agency. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest. Ethical statement This study did not involve human participants or vertebrate animals. Author Contribution Prabhjot Kaur1*, Suman Kumari2 and Sukhdeep Kaur3 1Assistant Professor (Plant Protection), 2Assistant Professor (Plant Protection), 3Assistant Professor (Home Science)1,3Punjab Agricultural University-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hoshiarpur, Punjab2Punjab Agricultural University-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kapurthala, Punjab References Abbas M, Hussain D, Saleem M, Ghaffar A, Abbas S, Hussain N, Ghaffar A (2021) Integrated pest management of guava, citrus and mango fruit flies at three districts of Punjab, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 53 :1–9 Akter H, Mendez V, Morelli R, Pérez J, Taylor PW (2017) Raspberry ketone supplement promotes early sexual maturation in male Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pest Management Science 73 :1764–1770 Anonymous (2024) Package of practices for cultivation of fruit crops. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana Aragón-García A, Pérez-Torres BC, Vera-Cano DA, Trejo-Vázquez R, Mota-Nava HB (2015) Reproductive habits of the guava weevil Conotrachelus dimidiatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Entomología Mexicana 2 :613–618 Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (1990) Official methods of analysis . AOAC, Washington, DC Badii KB, Billah MK, Afreh-Nuamah K, Obeng-Ofori D, Nyarko G (2015) Review of the pest status, economic impact and management of fruit-infesting flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research 10 :488–498 Chandana MR, Menaka M, Kumar SS, Goswami AK, Ramya S (2023) Eco-friendly management of fruit fly for quality guava production. Indian Horticulture 2 :43–46 Chandra A, Bhagawati K, Kalita H, Angami T (2022) Weather-based fruit fly population dynamics prediction model for the mid-hills of the eastern Himalayan region of India. Current World Environment 17 :1–10 Costa JV, de Sousa MSM, de Souza-Filho MF, Murbach CG, Monteiro Oliveira JP, Pereira dos Santos T, Teixeira Matos AKB, Nava DE, Adaime R (2025) Carambola fruit fly in Brazil: new host and first record of associated parasitoids. Florida Entomologist 108 :20240053 https://doi.org/10.1515/flaent-2024-0053 Dominiak BC, Fanson BG (2020) Current quarantine and suspension distances are excessive for incipient populations of Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae). Crop Protection 138 :105341 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105341 Doseděl M, Jirkovský E, Macáková K, Křčmová LK, Javorská L, Pourová J, Mercolini L, Remião F, Nováková L, Mladenka P (2021) Vitamin C—sources, physiological role, kinetics, deficiency, use, toxicity, and determination. Nutrients 13 :615 https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020615 Drew AI, Romig MC, Dorji C (2007) Record of dacine fruit flies and new species of Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Bhutan. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 55 :1–21 Haidel VM, Alejandra BM, Oscar CA, María Teresa MD, Antonio TV (2019) Physicochemical quality parameters in guava fruit with presence of larvae of Conotrachelus dimidiatus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura 25 :103–112 https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2018.10.019 Hussain D, Saleem M, Abbas M, Ali Q, Qasim M, Hafeez F, Ashrif M, Zubair M, Saleem MJ, Ghouse G (2022) Monitoring and management of fruit fly populations using the male annihilation technique in guava orchards. International Journal of Pest Management 71 :1–9 https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2022.2115800 Khan MA, Muhammad A, Waessem A, Lee LL (2005) Management of fruit flies of the most perishable fruit. Entomological Research 35 :79–84 Khan MM, Shah SWH, Akhter I, Malik H (2017) Integrated pest management of fruit flies in guava orchards. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 5 :135–138 Kumar BA, Keshavareddy G, Ranjitha SM (2024) Biochemical influences on fruit fly infestation in selected guava varieties. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research 8 :756–761 Kumar M, Tomar M, Amarowicz R, (2021) Guava ( Psidium guajava L.) leaves: nutritional composition, phytochemical profile and health-promoting bioactivities. Foods 10 :752 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040752 Lello F, Dida M, Mkiramweni M, Matiko J, Akol R, Nsabagwa M, Katumba A (2023) Fruit fly automatic detection and monitoring techniques: a review. Smart Agricultural Technology 5 :100294 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100294 Maciel AAS, Lemos RNS, Araújo AAR, Machado KKG, Silva EA, Araújo JRG, Mesquita MLR (2017) Diversity and infestation indices of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in guava ( Psidium guajava L.). African Journal of Agricultural Research 12 :2087–2092 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2016.11973 Manoukis NC, Vargas RI, Carvalho L, Fezza T, Wilson S, Collier T, Shelly TE (2019) Field evaluation of the male annihilation technique against Bactrocera dorsalis . PLoS ONE 14 :e0213337 Manrakhan A, Daneel JH, Beck R, Love CN, Gilbert MJ (2021) Effects of male lure dispensers and trap types for monitoring of Ceratitis capitata and Bactrocera dorsalis . Pest Management Science 77 :2219–2230 Orankanok W, Chinvinijkul S, Thanaphum S, Sitilob P, Enkerlin WR (2007) Area-wide integrated control of oriental fruit fly and guava fruit fly in Thailand. In: Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J (eds) Area-wide control of insect pests . Springer, Dordrecht, pp 517–526 Papadopoulos NT, Meyer MD, Terblanche JS, Kriticos DJ (2024) Fruit flies: challenges and opportunities to stem the tide of global invasions. Annual Review of Entomology 69 :355–373 Reynolds OL, Osborne T, Crisp P, Barchia IM (2016) Specialized pheromone and lure application technology as an alternative male annihilation technique to manage Bactrocera tryoni . Journal of Economic Entomology 109 :tow023 https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow023 Singh S, Sharma DR (2012) Abundance and management of fruit flies on peach through male annihilation technique. Journal of Insect Science 25 :135–143 Singh S, Sharma DR (2013) Management of fruit flies in rainy-season guava through male annihilation technique using methyl eugenol-based traps. Indian Journal of Horticulture 70 :512–518 Singh S, Sharma DR, Kular JS, Gill MIS, Arora NK, Bons MS (2014) Eco-friendly management of fruit flies ( Bactrocera spp.) in guava with methyl eugenol traps in Punjab. Indian Journal of Ecology 41 :365–367 Singh S, Sharma DR, Kular JS (2014) Eco-friendly management of fruit flies ( Bactrocera spp.) in pear using methyl eugenol traps in Punjab. Journal of Insect Science 27 :57–62 Souder SK (2020) Enhancing male annihilation technique (MAT) of fruit flies using a binary lure system with a biopesticide. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, USA Sumathi E, Manimaran R, Nirmala Devi M, Ilamaran M, Agila R (2019) Population dynamics and management of mango fruit fly Bactrocera dorsalis . International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 8 :2705–2710 Vargas RI, Mau RFL, Stark JD, Piñero JC (2010) Evaluation of methyl eugenol and cue-lure traps for fruit fly monitoring and male annihilation. Journal of Economic Entomology 103 :409–415 Vargas RI, Stark JD, Kido MH, Ketter HM, Whitehand LC (2000) Methyl eugenol and cue-lure traps for suppression of male oriental fruit flies. Journal of Economic Entomology 93 :81–87 Vargas RI, Leblanc L, Piñero JC, Hoffman KH (2014) Male annihilation: past, present and future. In: Shelly TE et al (eds) Trapping and the detection, control, and regulation of tephritid fruit flies . Springer, Dordrecht, pp 493–511 Verghese A, Shivananda TN, Mumford JD, Jayanthi K (2016) Socio-economic analyses of area-wide management of mango fruit fly in South India. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance , pp 87–92 Zhou D, Liu M, Wang J, (2024) Evaluating the efficacy of the male annihilation technique in managing oriental fruit fly populations. Insects 15 (10) :796 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8372551","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":564161850,"identity":"1b21ffe4-ec50-46de-89e9-62d7c3895663","order_by":0,"name":"Prabhjot Kaur","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Punjab Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Prabhjot","middleName":"","lastName":"Kaur","suffix":""},{"id":564161851,"identity":"83d71a0c-8058-4c9f-a6b2-e89aad401b2c","order_by":1,"name":"Suman Kumari","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Suman","middleName":"","lastName":"Kumari","suffix":""},{"id":564161854,"identity":"1bfd8e71-383c-4eae-b830-0f0dc163e945","order_by":2,"name":"Sukhdeep Kaur","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Punjab Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sukhdeep","middleName":"","lastName":"Kaur","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-16 06:38:13","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8372551/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8372551/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":98981968,"identity":"f63d0931-6e4e-467e-ad01-4858a1350d8c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:20","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":45683,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"FRUITFLY.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/9955087cc17452bbfa219ac7.docx"},{"id":98981973,"identity":"46b4b838-c8b5-4367-8119-0755ef00f62b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:22","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":4828,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1f1764f284454a479d1403153dc5e510.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/1ff4c8fecfdffb5b74016284.json"},{"id":98981972,"identity":"d06ade98-1ef0-4c77-8e20-3a887d0bd5cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:22","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":108434,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1f1764f284454a479d1403153dc5e5101enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/c342e56b0259f875bc554ceb.xml"},{"id":98981975,"identity":"1a6590d1-f38a-4c0b-a4c0-c53708b5032d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:23","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":108996,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1f1764f284454a479d1403153dc5e5101structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/565d5b1e0227b2c6477771d3.xml"},{"id":98981976,"identity":"c735f702-0005-4bc0-ba60-0078f76e275f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:23","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":117616,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/4c89d421237852793c7077fb.html"},{"id":98981980,"identity":"203ccf05-e1ee-4d98-a3d6-ea776019d997","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:24","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26093,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFruit yield (kg/ha) in MAT-treated and untreated guava orchards across eight locations in Hoshiarpur, Punjab (2023–2024). Bars show mean yield (n = 5 trees per treatment), with error bars representing standard error. Treated orchards showed significantly higher yields (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.05).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/6cfad673a81d91ce1befd51a.png"},{"id":98981974,"identity":"1afabc78-0d9a-4b71-961c-10e882b101fd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:22","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":20340,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRegression between fruit fly infestation rate (%) and guava yield (kg/ha) across eight orchards (n = 8). A strong negative correlation was observed (\u003cem\u003eR²\u003c/em\u003e = 0.92, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/f1769faae077a79824a8cc83.png"},{"id":98981970,"identity":"14b26cdc-965e-4dcc-aa79-a69a3a4435b6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-25 07:09:20","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53392,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSeasonal trend of fruit fly infestation (%) and weather parameters (rainfall and temperature) in Hoshiarpur, Punjab (2023–2024). Data represent weekly means from eight orchards (n = 8).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/7a8ff8c590c099de66b4043b.png"},{"id":102853633,"identity":"4e5bbed8-d07a-42be-8f6d-56c8e1542d51","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-17 14:42:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1367017,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8372551/v1/8672197c-f709-4f9a-a59b-d2d6b1330d04.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Eco-Friendly Management of Fruit Flies (Bactrocera spp.) in Guava Orchards Using the Male Annihilation Technique: Impacts on Yield and Fruit Quality","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eGuava (\u003cem\u003ePsidium guajava\u003c/em\u003e L.) is an economically and nutritionally important fruit crop cultivated widely in tropical and subtropical regions. Rich in vitamin C, antioxidants and dietary fiber, guava contributes substantially to human nutrition and health, playing a role in immune support, digestive health and chronic disease prevention (Kumar et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In Punjab, India, guava is grown on approximately 9.73 thousand hectares with an annual production of 227.29 thousand metric tonnes (Anonymous, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Despite its economic value, guava productivity and marketability are severely constrained by infestations of tephritid fruit flies (\u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e spp.), notably \u003cem\u003eB. dorsalis\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eB. zonata\u003c/em\u003e, which cause direct fruit damage, premature drop and post-harvest decay (Singh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Singh \u0026amp; Sharma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). Infestation not only reduces marketable yields but also degrades physico-chemical traits such as total soluble solids and vitamin C through oxidative and microbial processes, thereby diminishing nutritional value and consumer acceptance (Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019). Globally, fruit flies are estimated to be responsible for 30\u0026ndash;40% losses in guava production in affected areas, with substantial economic and quarantine consequences for trade (Badii et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConventional management of \u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e spp. has relied heavily on broad-spectrum insecticides, raising concerns about residues, non-target impacts and resistance development. As a result, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approaches that reduce pesticide dependency are increasingly promoted. Available IPM components\u0026mdash;protein bait sprays, Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) and biological control\u0026mdash;each have benefits but also practical limitations: protein baits require frequent re-application and may affect beneficials (Khan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e); SIT demands large infrastructure and is costly for smallholders (Papadopoulos et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); and biological agents can be climate-dependent and require sustained augmentation (Chandana et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These constraints underscore the need for cost-effective, scalable interventions that can be implemented under heterogeneous smallholder conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Male Annihilation Technique (MAT), which exploits methyl eugenol responsiveness in many \u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e species, selectively targets males to disrupt mating and reduce population buildup. MAT has been implemented successfully in multiple cropping systems and regions, often producing substantial reductions in male catches and infestation (Orankanok et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Sumathi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Case studies from Australia and Brazil further demonstrate MAT\u0026rsquo;s utility when integrated with orchard sanitation and other IPM components (Dominiak \u0026amp; Fanson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Costa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, most published evaluations emphasize trap catch dynamics and male suppression; comparatively few studies quantify the downstream effects of MAT on yield, marketable production and fruit nutritional quality across multiple, heterogeneous field locations. Moreover, some MAT formulations include an insecticidal toxicant (e.g., malathion) to ensure mortality of attracted males, so claims of \u0026ldquo;eco-friendliness\u0026rdquo; should be framed relative to reduced overall pesticide input and targeted application rather than complete absence of toxicants.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePunjab\u0026rsquo;s guava orchards experience marked seasonal variation in temperature and rainfall that influences \u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e population dynamics and can exacerbate yield and quality losses during monsoon and post-monsoon periods. In this context, a comprehensive evaluation that links MAT-driven population suppression to measurable improvements in yield stability and fruit physico-chemical attributes is essential for robust, evidence-based IPM recommendations at regional scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, this study was conducted across eight guava orchards in Hoshiarpur district (Punjab, India) to (i) evaluate the efficacy of PAU-developed methyl eugenol MAT traps in suppressing \u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e spp., (ii) quantify MAT\u0026rsquo;s impact on fruit yield and marketable production, and (iii) examine relationships between infestation intensity and key physico-chemical attributes (fruit weight, TSS, vitamin C, titratable acidity). By integrating population, yield and quality metrics across multiple locations, the study aims to provide a rigorous assessment of MAT\u0026rsquo;s role within sustainable IPM for guava.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Area and Experimental Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted during 2023\u0026ndash;2024 across eight guava orchards (variety \u003cem\u003eAllahabad Safeda\u003c/em\u003e) in Hoshiarpur district, Punjab, covering a total area of 2.5 hectares. These locations were selected based on variations in temperature, humidity, and soil characteristics to represent diverse agro-climatic conditions of the district. The study sites included Haveli (Location 1), Pakhowal (Location 2), Khanoor (Location 3), Machhian (Location 4), Khera Kotli (Location 5), Bajwa (Location 6), Bhambowal (Location 7), and Jallowal (Location 8). A randomized block design (RBD) was employed with two treatments: MAT-treated orchards (treated group) and untreated orchards (control group). In each orchard, \u003cstrong\u003efive randomly selected trees per treatment\u003c/strong\u003e served as replicates for sampling and data collection. In the MAT-treated orchards, 16 methyl eugenol-based fruit fly traps developed by PAU were installed per acre in early July, with refills every 30 days to ensure continued effectiveness. These traps contained a mixture of methyl eugenol (0.5%) and malathion (0.1%), acting as both an attractant and a toxicant specifically targeting male fruit flies. In contrast, the untreated control orchards followed conventional farmer practices, including insecticide applications and orchard sanitation, but lacked a structured pest management strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAssessment of Fruit Fly Infestation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo confirm the presence of \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBactrocera spp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., each fruit was visually inspected and further verified under an optical microscope in the laboratory. To evaluate infestation levels, weekly fruit sampling (n = 50/treatment) was carried out. Fruits were classified into three categories: infested (showing ovipositional punctures), fallen infested, and healthy. The percentage of infestation was calculated using the following formula:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis approach enables precise quantification of infestation levels within the sampled population. A similar methodology, adopted by Kumar (2024), was used for assessing fruit fly infestation in guava orchards, ensuring consistency across studies. The percentage of infested fruits was determined by dividing the number of infested fruits by the total sampled fruits and multiplying by 100, thus providing the infestation rate. At harvest, the total fruit yield (kg/ha) was recorded, and the number of marketable fruits per tree was assessed to evaluate commercial viability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePhysico-Chemical Analysis of MAT-treated vs. control fruits\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation of the Experiment and Plant Material:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe experiment was conducted in the Food \u0026amp; Nutrition Lab, PAU, Ludhiana. Guava fruit of the commercial variety \u003cem\u003eAllahabad Safeda\u003c/em\u003e, infested with \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBactrocera spp.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, were used. These fruits were sourced from eight locations within the Hoshiarpur district. The fruits were harvested based on the indices commonly used by producers in these locations, characterized by firm pulp and the initial color change from dark green to light green (yellowish). A completely randomized design was employed, with the experimental unit consisting of a set of 8 fruits. Each Physico-chemical analysis was performed in triplicate as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFruit Weight (g):\u003c/strong\u003e It was measured using a portable electronic scale with a precision of 0.01 g.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFruit Length and Equatorial Diameter (mm):\u003c/strong\u003e They were determined using a digital Vernier caliper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTitratable Acidity (% Citric Acid):\u003c/strong\u003e It was assessed following the methodology outlined by the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC, 1990), with minor modifications. Ten grams of fruit were homogenized with 50 mL of distilled water; from this mixture, 10 mL were neutralized with a 0.1 N NaOH solution using 1% phenolphthalein as the indicator.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal Soluble Solids (\u0026deg;Brix):\u003c/strong\u003e It was measured using a portable digital refractometer, which operates on a 0-53\u0026deg; scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVitamin C (Ascorbic Acid):\u003c/strong\u003e It was estimated using the Tillman method (AOAC, 1990), based on DFI-2,6 dichlorophenol-indophenol. An aliquot of 10 mL was taken from a mixture of 5 g of finely chopped fruit homogenized with 50 mL of oxalic acid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical Analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe collected data were analyzed using statistical software to determine the significance of differences between treated and control groups. A t-test was conducted for infestation rate, male flies captured, marketable fruits, and fruit yield to compare the means. Pearson\u0026rsquo;s correlation, t-test, and regression analysis were conducted to evaluate the relationship between fruit fly infestation and meteorological parameters (temperature, humidity, and rainfall). The correlation coefficient (r) was computed to assess the relationship between infestation rate and other parameters. The t-test results showed significant differences (p \u0026lt; 0.05) in all measured parameters. A strong negative correlation (r = -0.99564) was observed between infestation rate and fruit yield, indicating that higher infestation rates led to lower yields. Seasonal infestation trends were visualized using scatter plots, regression trendlines, and time-series graphs, providing insights into climatic influences on fruit fly dynamics. The data collected for physico-chemical parameters were analyzed using Student\u0026apos;s t-test (P \u0026le; 0.05) for comparing two groups; MAT-treated vs. control, with SPSS Window version 26, Software, Inc., India.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1: Effect of Treatment on Fruit Fly Infestation, Male Flies Captured, Marketable Fruits, and Fruit Yield across different locations during 2023 and 2024\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation (Coordinates)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGroup\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*Infestation rate (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*Male Flies capture (Trap/Week)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*Marketable Fruits/Tree\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*Fruit Yield (kg/ha)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReduction in Infestation (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.5 \u0026plusmn; 1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1150 \u0026plusmn; 45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e160 \u0026plusmn; 4.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e205.2 \u0026plusmn; 6.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.7 \u0026plusmn; 1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e108 \u0026plusmn; 3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e140.8 \u0026plusmn; 5.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.8 \u0026plusmn; 1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1200 \u0026plusmn; 50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155 \u0026plusmn; 4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e198.1 \u0026plusmn; 6.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.5 \u0026plusmn; 1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101 \u0026plusmn; 3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e140.7 \u0026plusmn; 5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.6 \u0026plusmn; 1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1240 \u0026plusmn; 51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e151 \u0026plusmn; 4.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e192.6 \u0026plusmn; 6.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.8 \u0026plusmn; 1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97 \u0026plusmn; 3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e138.8 \u0026plusmn; 5.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.0 \u0026plusmn; 1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1250 \u0026plusmn; 50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e150 \u0026plusmn; 4.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e195.5 \u0026plusmn; 6.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.2 \u0026plusmn; 1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96 \u0026plusmn; 3.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e137.2 \u0026plusmn; 5.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.3 \u0026plusmn; 1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1215 \u0026plusmn; 49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e154 \u0026plusmn; 4.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e196.8 \u0026plusmn; 6.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e42.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.6 \u0026plusmn; 1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102 \u0026plusmn; 3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e141.5 \u0026plusmn; 5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.5 \u0026plusmn; 1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1180 \u0026plusmn; 48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e157 \u0026plusmn; 4.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200.1 \u0026plusmn; 6.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.2 \u0026plusmn; 1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e105 \u0026plusmn; 3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e142.5 \u0026plusmn; 5.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.0 \u0026plusmn; 1.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1305 \u0026plusmn; 52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e148 \u0026plusmn; 4.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e191.3 \u0026plusmn; 6.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.3 \u0026plusmn; 1.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92 \u0026plusmn; 3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e133.5 \u0026plusmn; 5.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocation 8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTreated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.0 \u0026plusmn; 1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1350 \u0026plusmn; 55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e145 \u0026plusmn; 4.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e187.8 \u0026plusmn; 5.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.0 \u0026plusmn; 1.7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89 \u0026plusmn; 3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e130.7 \u0026plusmn; 5.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003et-test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ep-value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.554%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCorrelation (r)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.99564\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrong negative\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 14.241%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNA: no traps were used in untreated orchards; thus, male fly capture data was not recorded\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*Values are\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean \u0026plusmn; SE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of MAT on Fruit Fly Infestation and Population Suppression\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) significantly reduced fruit fly infestation across all experimental locations, with treated orchards showing lower infestation levels (18.5%\u0026ndash;23.0%) compared to untreated orchards (32.7%\u0026ndash;38.0%) (p \u0026lt; 0.05) (Table 1). The highest reduction (43.5%) was observed in Haveli, followed by Bajwa (43.1%) and Khera Kotli (42.8%), confirming MAT\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness. High male fruit fly captures in MAT-treated orchards (1150\u0026ndash;1350 flies/trap/week) indicated successful reproductive suppression, with Jallowal (1350 flies/trap/week) and Bhambowal (1305 flies/trap/week) recording the highest captures. Statistical analysis further confirmed significant differences (p \u0026lt; 0.05) in infestation rate, marketable fruits, and fruit yield, with a strong negative correlation (r = -0.99564) indicating that higher infestation rates led to lower yields. These findings align with Zhou et al., (2024), who reported a 42% reduction in fruit fly populations following MAT deployment. Unlike chemical control methods (e.g., malathion spraying), which require frequent applications and pose risks of pesticide resistance and residue accumulation, MAT provides season-long suppression with a one-time setup cost. The statistical significance (p \u0026lt; 0.05) underscores MAT\u0026rsquo;s reliability in guava pest management and its potential integration into broader Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies for sustainable pest control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInfluence of MAT on Yield and Marketability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMAT-treated orchards recorded significantly higher marketable fruit production (145\u0026ndash;160 fruits/tree) compared to untreated orchards (89\u0026ndash;108 fruits/tree) (p \u0026lt; 0.05), demonstrating its role in enhancing guava quality and commercial value. The highest marketable fruit count (160 fruits/tree) was observed at Haveli, whereas the lowest among treated orchards was recorded at Jallowal (145 fruits/tree). The overall fruit yield in treated orchards ranged from 187.8 to 205.2 kg/ha, whereas untreated orchards exhibited significantly lower yields (130.7\u0026ndash;141.5 kg/ha) (p \u0026lt; 0.05) (Figure 1). The highest yield increase was noted at Haveli (205.2 kg/ha), highlighting the substantial economic advantage of MAT adoption. These results align with the findings of Sumathi et al., (2019), who reported 30\u0026ndash;50% improvements in fruit yield following MAT application in tropical orchards. By enhancing fruit retention and marketability, MAT significantly reduces post-harvest losses, ensuring greater profitability for farmers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bar chart illustrates the significant impact of the Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) on guava yield across different locations. Treated orchards consistently exhibited higher yields (187.8\u0026ndash;205.2 kg/ha) compared to untreated ones (130.7\u0026ndash;142.5 kg/ha), with the highest yield recorded at Haveli (205.2 kg/ha). This visual comparison reinforces the effectiveness of MAT in reducing fruit fly infestation, leading to improved fruit retention and marketability. The clear yield gap between treated and untreated orchards highlights MAT\u0026rsquo;s economic benefits and its potential as a sustainable pest management strategy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegression Analysis: Impact of Fruit Fly Infestation on Guava Yield\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe regression analysis (R\u0026sup2; = 0.92, p \u0026lt; 0.01) demonstrates a strong negative correlation between fruit fly infestation and guava yield, indicating that increased pest pressure significantly reduces productivity (Figure 2: Regression Analysis of Fruit Fly Infestation vs. Fruit Yield). The regression equation y=\u0026minus;3.973x+277.3 shows a \u003cstrong\u003estrong negative correlation\u003c/strong\u003e (R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=0.991) between \u003cstrong\u003einfestation rate (%) and fruit yield (kg/ha)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e The \u003cstrong\u003eslope (-3.973)\u003c/strong\u003e indicates that for every \u003cstrong\u003e1% increase in infestation, fruit yield decreases by 3.973 kg/ha\u003c/strong\u003e. The \u003cstrong\u003eintercept (277.3)\u003c/strong\u003e suggests that at \u003cstrong\u003e0% infestation, the predicted yield is 277.3 kg/ha\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e This high R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e value means \u003cstrong\u003e99.1% of fruit yield variation is explained by infestation rate\u003c/strong\u003e, emphasizing the significant impact of pest infestation on crop production. The Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) effectively suppressed infestation (18.5\u0026ndash;23.0% in treated vs. 32.7\u0026ndash;38.0% in untreated plots), resulting in significantly higher marketable yields (p \u0026lt; 0.01). These findings align with previous studies by \u003cstrong\u003eDrew et al., (2007) and Manrakhan et al., (2021)\u003c/strong\u003e, and reinforce the role of MAT in mitigating economic losses. Moreover, comparative yield data across locations validate the necessity of pest management in improving orchard performance. Integrating MAT into broader Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, including sanitation, biological control, and selective insecticide use, is essential for sustainable fruit fly suppression. Further research should assess the economic viability and long-term efficacy of MAT under varying climatic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe seasonal trend of fruit fly infestation (Figure 3: Correlation between Weather Parameters and Fruit Fly Infestation) indicates peak pest pressure during July and August, coinciding with increased rainfall and high temperatures. As post-monsoon rainfall declines, infestation levels also drop, emphasizing the strong influence of weather parameters on pest dynamics. Interestingly, the observed negative correlation between relative humidity and fruit fly infestation can be attributed to several ecological and behavioral factors. High relative humidity, particularly during peak monsoon periods, is often associated with heavy rainfall, which can disrupt the fruit fly life cycle by washing away eggs and larvae from fruit surfaces and soil. Moreover, extended wet conditions reduce adult fly activity, limit mating opportunities, and make fruits less suitable for oviposition due to fungal and bacterial growth. This pattern aligns with the findings of Chandra et al. (2022) in their study \u0026quot;Weather-Based Fruit Fly Population Dynamics Prediction Model for the Mid-Hills of Eastern Himalayan Region of India,\u0026quot; which demonstrated how meteorological conditions could be effectively used to predict infestation peaks and guide integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for sustainable fruit production.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImplications for Integrated Pest Management (IPM)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings highlight MAT as a cost-effective, environmentally friendly alternative to chemical control, significantly reducing infestation while enhancing yield. The study strongly supports MAT\u0026rsquo;s integration into IPM programs, combining orchard sanitation and biological control for long-term sustainability (Abbas et al., 2021). Future research should explore MAT\u0026rsquo;s economic feasibility and its synergistic potential with other IPM components.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2: Comparative analysis of Physico-chemical parameters of control and MAT-treated groups\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"108%\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTreatment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFW (gm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFL (cm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFB (cm)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTSS (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(mg/100g pulp)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTA (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMAT-Treated\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e218\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e143.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eT-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eP Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .00001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000497*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .00001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .00001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.000013*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt; .00001*\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFW= fruit weight; FL= fruit length; FB= fruit breadth; TSS = total soluble solids; VC = vitamin C; TA = titratable acidity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*Significant at \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.05 level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003eNS\u003c/sup\u003e Non-Significant\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eImpact of MAT Treatment on Physico-Chemical Traits of Guava Fruits\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe mean values for control versus MAT-treated groups (Table 2) showed notable differences across various parameters. Control group had a lower fruit weight (62.8 gm) compared to MAT-treated group (88 gm). Similarly, control fruits had shorter fruit length (4.8 cm) and fruit breadth (4.6 cm) than MAT-treated group (5.4 cm and 5.8 cm, respectively). Additionally, control group exhibited reduced TSS (9.9%) compared to the MAT-treated group (11%), lower vitamin C content (143.9 mg/100g) versus MAT-treated group (218 mg/100g), and decreased TA (0.2%) compared to MAT-treated group (0.5%). These differences were statistically significant, as indicated by the p-values (all \u0026lt; 0.05), suggesting that infestation negatively impacts both the physical and biochemical properties of the fruits (Table 2).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe present study demonstrated a significant reduction in fruit fly infestation (64.5%) and a corresponding yield increase (18.7%) in MAT-treated guava orchards across eight locations in Punjab. These results confirm the potential of MAT as an effective, sustainable, and eco-friendly strategy for fruit fly management. Our findings align with those of Maciel et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e), who reported a 48% decline in \u003cem\u003eAnastrepha\u003c/em\u003e infestations in Brazilian guava orchards, and Dominiak and Fanson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), who documented the successful eradication of \u003cem\u003eBactrocera tryoni\u003c/em\u003e outbreaks in Australia when MAT was combined with orchard sanitation. Moreover, this study supports prior work by Zhou et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e); Singh et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e); Dominiak \u0026amp; Fanson (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), emphasizing the efficacy of male-targeting techniques for population suppression across diverse agro-climatic conditions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to broad-spectrum insecticides, MAT offers species specificity, significantly reducing environmental contamination and preserving beneficial insect populations (Akter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Abbas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Its integration into IPM programs aligns well with modern eco-friendly pest management frameworks (Hussain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), particularly when combined with complementary cultural practices such as orchard sanitation and host plant resistance (Souder et al., 2020; Reynolds et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). In agreement with previous studies (Hussain et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Vargas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), our findings indicate that higher trap captures in MAT-treated orchards correlated with reduced oviposition rates, leading to lower infestation levels and improved fruit retention. Consequently, fruit quality improved by minimizing microbial contamination and enzymatic degradation, corroborating earlier observations by Verghese et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) and Khan et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom an economic perspective, MAT-treated orchards in this study achieved higher marketable yields and superior fruit quality, reinforcing its viability as a cost-effective alternative to chemical insecticides. The observed cost-benefit advantage (₹2,500\u0026ndash;₹3,000 per acre for MAT vs. ₹5,500\u0026ndash;₹6,500 per acre for insecticide-based programs) mirrors earlier findings by Manoukis et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) and Vargas et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), who demonstrated long-term economic gains associated with MAT adoption. Furthermore, the significant correlation between climatic factors and fruit fly infestation levels observed in this study underlines the importance of seasonally adaptive pest control strategies, as previously emphasized by Vargas et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) and Chandra et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding MAT applications beyond guava to other economically important fruit crops such as mango, citrus, peach, pear, plum, and papaya offers substantial potential to amplify its impact in horticultural pest management. Successful suppression of fruit flies using methyl eugenol-based traps has already been reported in peach (Singh \u0026amp; Sharma, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e) and pear (Singh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) orchards in Punjab, while large-scale adoption in Australia and Brazil further highlights MAT\u0026rsquo;s adaptability to varied agro-climatic settings (Maciel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Dominiak \u0026amp; Fanson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, integrating MAT with baiting and biological control methods, including parasitoids and entomopathogenic fungi, has shown promise in enhancing fruit fly suppression (Drew et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Manrakhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo maximize its benefits, promoting MAT adoption through farmer training, policy incentives, and government-supported extension programs will be critical. Advances in MAT technology, such as improved attractant formulations and automated trap deployment systems, are poised to further enhance efficiency and scalability. As climate change continues to shift pest dynamics globally, future research should prioritize the long-term evaluation of MAT\u0026rsquo;s effects on fruit fly behavior, resistance evolution, and ecological interactions (Chandra et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Vargas et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e). By integrating MAT within climate-resilient pest management frameworks, sustainable and profitable fruit production can be achieved on both regional and international scales.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEffect of MAT-treatment on Physico-chemical parameters of guava fruits as compared to control\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings of this study indicate that the MAT treatment had a significant positive impact on various fruit quality parameters when compared to the control group. The mean fruit weight was substantially higher in the MAT-treated group compared to the control group. This suggests that the application of MAT contributed to improved fruit development, owing to enhanced nutrient uptake and reduced detrimental effects of infestation (Lello et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).In terms of fruit morphology, the MAT-treated group exhibited greater fruit length and fruit breadth compared to the control group. These findings align with previous studies (Aragon et al., 2015; Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019) suggesting that fruit size is directly influenced by hormonal regulation, nutrient allocation, and pest management strategies. The increased dimensions in MAT-treated fruits indicate that the intervention may have contributed to improved physiological growth and structural integrity (Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019). In the present study, the biochemical composition of the fruits also demonstrated notable differences between the two groups. The TSS content was significantly higher in the MAT-treated group compared to the control group, suggesting enhanced sugar accumulation. This could be attributed to reduced metabolic stress and optimized physiological processes in the treated fruits. Similarly, the vitamin C content was significantly greater in the MAT-treated group compared to the control group. Given that vitamin C degradation is often associated with oxidative stress and enzymatic activity (Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019; Doseděl et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), the lower vitamin C content in the control group may be linked to increased cellular damage caused by infestation. Additionally, the TA levels were notably higher in the MAT-treated group than in the control group, indicating better retention of organic acids, which play a crucial role in maintaining fruit flavor and postharvest quality (Zhang; Jiang \u0026amp; Zhang, 2023). The statistically significant differences observed across all these parameters (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) highlight the adverse effects of infestation on fruit development and quality, while underscoring the efficacy of MAT treatment in mitigating these impacts. Overall, these findings along with previous research (Aragon et al., 2015; Vargas-Madriz et al., 2019), reinforce the importance of effective pest management strategies in maintaining and enhancing fruit quality. The observed improvements in fruit weight, size, and biochemical attributes suggest that MAT treatment is a viable approach to enhancing both the commercial value and nutritional composition of the fruits.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe successful implementation of the Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) using methyl eugenol-based PAU fruit fly traps significantly reduced fruit fly infestations in guava orchards, leading to higher yields and improved fruit quality. Compared to traditional farmer practices, MAT-treated orchards experienced up to a 43.5% reduction in infestation and a notable increase in marketable fruit yield. The adoption of this eco-friendly pest management approach not only enhances guava production but also preserves its nutritional value, ensuring a safer and healthier option for consumers. Given its cost-effectiveness, sustainability, and scalability, MAT presents a viable alternative to chemical insecticides, thereby supporting sustainable agriculture, improved farmer livelihoods, and public health. To maximize its impact, policy-level interventions\u0026mdash;such as government subsidies, farmer training programs, and integration into national pest management guidelines\u0026mdash;should be encouraged. Additionally, incorporating MAT into broader Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies can further enhance food security while minimizing environmental impact and promoting long-term pest control sustainability. Infestation significantly reduces the physical characteristics (weight, length, and breadth) and biochemical properties (TSS, vitamin C content, and titratable acidity) of fruits, highlighting the detrimental effects of infestation on overall fruit quality.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding statement\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;This study did not involve human participants or vertebrate animals.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrabhjot Kaur1*, Suman Kumari2 and Sukhdeep Kaur3 1Assistant Professor (Plant Protection), 2Assistant Professor (Plant Protection), 3Assistant Professor (Home Science)1,3Punjab Agricultural University-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Hoshiarpur, Punjab2Punjab Agricultural University-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kapurthala, Punjab\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbbas M, Hussain D, Saleem M, Ghaffar A, Abbas S, Hussain N, Ghaffar A (2021) Integrated pest management of guava, citrus and mango fruit flies at three districts of Punjab, Pakistan. \u003cem\u003ePakistan Journal of Zoology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e53\u003c/strong\u003e:1\u0026ndash;9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkter H, Mendez V, Morelli R, P\u0026eacute;rez J, Taylor PW (2017) Raspberry ketone supplement promotes early sexual maturation in male Queensland fruit fly \u003cem\u003eBactrocera tryoni\u003c/em\u003e (Diptera: Tephritidae). \u003cem\u003ePest Management Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e73\u003c/strong\u003e:1764\u0026ndash;1770\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnonymous (2024) Package of practices for cultivation of fruit crops. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArag\u0026oacute;n-Garc\u0026iacute;a A, P\u0026eacute;rez-Torres BC, Vera-Cano DA, Trejo-V\u0026aacute;zquez R, Mota-Nava HB (2015) Reproductive habits of the guava weevil \u003cem\u003eConotrachelus dimidiatus\u003c/em\u003e (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). \u003cem\u003eEntomolog\u0026iacute;a Mexicana\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e:613\u0026ndash;618\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAssociation of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) (1990) \u003cem\u003eOfficial methods of analysis\u003c/em\u003e. AOAC, Washington, DC\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBadii KB, Billah MK, Afreh-Nuamah K, Obeng-Ofori D, Nyarko G (2015) Review of the pest status, economic impact and management of fruit-infesting flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Africa. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Agricultural Research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e:488\u0026ndash;498\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChandana MR, Menaka M, Kumar SS, Goswami AK, Ramya S (2023) Eco-friendly management of fruit fly for quality guava production. \u003cem\u003eIndian Horticulture\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e:43\u0026ndash;46\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChandra A, Bhagawati K, Kalita H, Angami T (2022) Weather-based fruit fly population dynamics prediction model for the mid-hills of the eastern Himalayan region of India. \u003cem\u003eCurrent World Environment\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e17\u003c/strong\u003e:1\u0026ndash;10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCosta JV, de Sousa MSM, de Souza-Filho MF, Murbach CG, Monteiro Oliveira JP, Pereira dos Santos T, Teixeira Matos AKB, Nava DE, Adaime R (2025) Carambola fruit fly in Brazil: new host and first record of associated parasitoids. \u003cem\u003eFlorida Entomologist\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e108\u003c/strong\u003e:20240053\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.1515/flaent-2024-0053\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDominiak BC, Fanson BG (2020) Current quarantine and suspension distances are excessive for incipient populations of Queensland fruit fly \u003cem\u003eBactrocera tryoni\u003c/em\u003e (Diptera: Tephritidae). \u003cem\u003eCrop Protection\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e138\u003c/strong\u003e:105341\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2020.105341\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoseděl M, Jirkovsk\u0026yacute; E, Mac\u0026aacute;kov\u0026aacute; K, Křčmov\u0026aacute; LK, Javorsk\u0026aacute; L, Pourov\u0026aacute; J, Mercolini L, Remi\u0026atilde;o F, Nov\u0026aacute;kov\u0026aacute; L, Mladenka P (2021) Vitamin C\u0026mdash;sources, physiological role, kinetics, deficiency, use, toxicity, and determination. \u003cem\u003eNutrients\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e:615\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13020615\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDrew AI, Romig MC, Dorji C (2007) Record of dacine fruit flies and new species of \u003cem\u003eDacus\u003c/em\u003e (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Bhutan. \u003cem\u003eRaffles Bulletin of Zoology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e55\u003c/strong\u003e:1\u0026ndash;21\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaidel VM, Alejandra BM, Oscar CA, Mar\u0026iacute;a Teresa MD, Antonio TV (2019) Physicochemical quality parameters in guava fruit with presence of larvae of \u003cem\u003eConotrachelus dimidiatus\u003c/em\u003e (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). \u003cem\u003eRevista Chapingo Serie Horticultura\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e:103\u0026ndash;112\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2018.10.019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHussain D, Saleem M, Abbas M, Ali Q, Qasim M, Hafeez F, Ashrif M, Zubair M, Saleem MJ, Ghouse G (2022) Monitoring and management of fruit fly populations using the male annihilation technique in guava orchards. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Pest Management\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e71\u003c/strong\u003e:1\u0026ndash;9\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2022.2115800\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan MA, Muhammad A, Waessem A, Lee LL (2005) Management of fruit flies of the most perishable fruit. \u003cem\u003eEntomological Research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e35\u003c/strong\u003e:79\u0026ndash;84\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKhan MM, Shah SWH, Akhter I, Malik H (2017) Integrated pest management of fruit flies in guava orchards. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Entomology and Zoology Studies\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e:135\u0026ndash;138\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar BA, Keshavareddy G, Ranjitha SM (2024) Biochemical influences on fruit fly infestation in selected guava varieties. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e:756\u0026ndash;761\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKumar M, Tomar M, Amarowicz R, (2021) Guava (\u003cem\u003ePsidium guajava\u003c/em\u003e L.) leaves: nutritional composition, phytochemical profile and health-promoting bioactivities. \u003cem\u003eFoods\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e:752\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040752\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLello F, Dida M, Mkiramweni M, Matiko J, Akol R, Nsabagwa M, Katumba A (2023) Fruit fly automatic detection and monitoring techniques: a review. \u003cem\u003eSmart Agricultural Technology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e:100294\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2023.100294\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaciel AAS, Lemos RNS, Ara\u0026uacute;jo AAR, Machado KKG, Silva EA, Ara\u0026uacute;jo JRG, Mesquita MLR (2017) Diversity and infestation indices of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in guava (\u003cem\u003ePsidium guajava\u003c/em\u003e L.). \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Agricultural Research\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e:2087\u0026ndash;2092\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2016.11973\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManoukis NC, Vargas RI, Carvalho L, Fezza T, Wilson S, Collier T, Shelly TE (2019) Field evaluation of the male annihilation technique against \u003cem\u003eBactrocera dorsalis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003ePLoS ONE\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e:e0213337\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eManrakhan A, Daneel JH, Beck R, Love CN, Gilbert MJ (2021) Effects of male lure dispensers and trap types for monitoring of \u003cem\u003eCeratitis capitata\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBactrocera dorsalis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003ePest Management Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e77\u003c/strong\u003e:2219\u0026ndash;2230\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrankanok W, Chinvinijkul S, Thanaphum S, Sitilob P, Enkerlin WR (2007) Area-wide integrated control of oriental fruit fly and guava fruit fly in Thailand. In: Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J (eds) \u003cem\u003eArea-wide control of insect pests\u003c/em\u003e. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 517\u0026ndash;526\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePapadopoulos NT, Meyer MD, Terblanche JS, Kriticos DJ (2024) Fruit flies: challenges and opportunities to stem the tide of global invasions. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Entomology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e69\u003c/strong\u003e:355\u0026ndash;373\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReynolds OL, Osborne T, Crisp P, Barchia IM (2016) Specialized pheromone and lure application technology as an alternative male annihilation technique to manage \u003cem\u003eBactrocera tryoni\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economic Entomology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e109\u003c/strong\u003e:tow023\u003cbr\u003e https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh S, Sharma DR (2012) Abundance and management of fruit flies on peach through male annihilation technique. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Insect Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e:135\u0026ndash;143\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh S, Sharma DR (2013) Management of fruit flies in rainy-season guava through male annihilation technique using methyl eugenol-based traps. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Horticulture\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e70\u003c/strong\u003e:512\u0026ndash;518\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh S, Sharma DR, Kular JS, Gill MIS, Arora NK, Bons MS (2014) Eco-friendly management of fruit flies (\u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e spp.) in guava with methyl eugenol traps in Punjab. \u003cem\u003eIndian Journal of Ecology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e41\u003c/strong\u003e:365\u0026ndash;367\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh S, Sharma DR, Kular JS (2014) Eco-friendly management of fruit flies (\u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e spp.) in pear using methyl eugenol traps in Punjab. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Insect Science\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e27\u003c/strong\u003e:57\u0026ndash;62\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSouder SK (2020) Enhancing male annihilation technique (MAT) of fruit flies using a binary lure system with a biopesticide. PhD Dissertation, University of Hawai\u0026lsquo;i at Mānoa, USA\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSumathi E, Manimaran R, Nirmala Devi M, Ilamaran M, Agila R (2019) Population dynamics and management of mango fruit fly \u003cem\u003eBactrocera dorsalis\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e:2705\u0026ndash;2710\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVargas RI, Mau RFL, Stark JD, Pi\u0026ntilde;ero JC (2010) Evaluation of methyl eugenol and cue-lure traps for fruit fly monitoring and male annihilation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economic Entomology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e103\u003c/strong\u003e:409\u0026ndash;415\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVargas RI, Stark JD, Kido MH, Ketter HM, Whitehand LC (2000) Methyl eugenol and cue-lure traps for suppression of male oriental fruit flies. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Economic Entomology\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e93\u003c/strong\u003e:81\u0026ndash;87\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVargas RI, Leblanc L, Pi\u0026ntilde;ero JC, Hoffman KH (2014) Male annihilation: past, present and future. In: Shelly TE et al (eds) \u003cem\u003eTrapping and the detection, control, and regulation of tephritid fruit flies\u003c/em\u003e. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 493\u0026ndash;511\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVerghese A, Shivananda TN, Mumford JD, Jayanthi K (2016) Socio-economic analyses of area-wide management of mango fruit fly in South India. In: \u003cem\u003eProceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance\u003c/em\u003e, pp 87\u0026ndash;92\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhou D, Liu M, Wang J, (2024) Evaluating the efficacy of the male annihilation technique in managing oriental fruit fly populations. \u003cem\u003eInsects\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e15 (10)\u003c/strong\u003e:796\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Fruit fly, Bactrocera spp., Guava, Male Annihilation Technique, Integrated Pest Management, Fruit quality","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8372551/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8372551/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eFruit fly infestations by \u003cem\u003eBactrocera\u003c/em\u003e spp. significantly reduce guava (\u003cem\u003ePsidium guajava\u003c/em\u003e) yield and quality, posing economic challenges for growers in Punjab, India. This study evaluated the efficacy of the Male Annihilation Technique (MAT) using methyl eugenol-based traps across eight guava orchards in Hoshiarpur district, Punjab, India during 2023\u0026ndash;2024. MAT-treated orchards showed a significant reduction in fruit fly infestation (18.5%\u0026ndash;23.0%) compared to untreated controls (32.7%\u0026ndash;38.0%), resulting in up to 43.5% suppression. Treated orchards also recorded higher fruit yields (187.8\u0026ndash;205.2 kg/ha) and more marketable fruits (145\u0026ndash;160 fruits/tree) than controls. Physico-chemical analyses revealed improved fruit quality in MAT-treated orchards, with higher fruit weight, size, total soluble solids, vitamin C content, and titratable acidity. Regression analysis showed a strong negative correlation between infestation rate and fruit yield, underscoring MAT\u0026rsquo;s role in reducing economic losses. These findings validate MAT as an effective component of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs for guava, offering a cost-efficient and sustainable alternative to chemical controls while supporting long-term productivity and fruit quality in Punjab's guava orchards.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Eco-Friendly Management of Fruit Flies (Bactrocera spp.) in Guava Orchards Using the Male Annihilation Technique: Impacts on Yield and Fruit Quality","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-25 07:08:41","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8372551/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"0157c158-1b56-4c1c-b2b3-6bb6dca5d191","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 25th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-17T14:41:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-25 07:08:41","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8372551","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8372551","identity":"rs-8372551","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}