Damage Patterns, Monitoring, and 
Management of Procontarinia mangiferae 
(Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Pakistan
Authors: Hafiz M. Rehman, Riaz Mahmood, 
Muhammad Razaq, and Gadi V. P. Reddy
This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Journal of 
Economic Entomology following peer review. The version of record for this article (see citation, 
below) is available online at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow189.
Rehman, Hafiz M, Riaz Mahmood, Muhammad Razaq, and Gadi V P Reddy. "Damage Patterns, 
Monitoring, and Management of Procontarinia mangiferae (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Pakistan." 
Journal of Economic Entomology 109, no. 6 (September 2016): 2446-2453. DOI: 10.1093/jee/
tow189.
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks 
scholarworks.montana.edu 
Damage Patterns, Monitoring, and Management of
Procontarinia mangiferae (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in
Pakistan
Hafiz M. Rehman,1,2,3 Riaz Mahmood,2 Muhammad Razaq,4 and Gadi V. P. Reddy5
1Department of Entomology, University College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur,
Bahawalpur, Pakistan (hafizmehmood83@hotmail.co.uk), 2CABI Central and West Asia, Opposite 1-A, Data Gunj Bukhsh Rd.,
Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, Pakistan (r.mahmood@cabi.org), 3Corresponding author, e-mail: hafizmehmood83@gmail.com,
4Department of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan
(muhammadrazaq@bzu.edu.pk) and 5Montana State University, Western Triangle Ag Research Center, P. O. Box 656, Conrad,
Montana, 59425 (reddy@montana.edu)
Received 5 March 2016; Accepted 4 August 2016
Abstract
Since 2005, mango has been damaged by a group of new pests, the gall midges, in all mango-growing areas of
Pakistan. Little is known about these pests in Pakistan. In this report, we present information on the occurrence, dam-
age patterns, methods for monitoring, andmanagement of Procontarinia mangiferae (Felt), a mango gall midge found
in the country. At the study site (Rahim Yar Khan, a district of the province Punjab, Pakistan), the pest was active from
January/February to April as eggs, larvae, and adults on mango inflorescence buds, branches (axillaries), and imma-
ture fruits. Females of P. mangiferae oviposited in inflorescence tissues, and larvae, after feeding on plant tissues,
dropped to the soil under the mango trees for pupation from February to April. Mango trees in commercial orchards
were more heavily damaged by P. mangiferae than were isolated trees in farmer fields (66.7%). The adults of P. man-
giferae were captured on sticky traps of all tested colors, and were in flight from January to May. Captures per trap
were highest on yellow traps, followed by green, blue, and clear traps. Control of mango gall midge was effectively
provided by the synthetic insecticide bifenthrin (Talstar 10 EC) and also by application of neem seed kernel extract on
the tree canopy if integrated with raking the soil under the mango tree canopy.
Gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) include phytophagous and
gall-making species (Barnes 1948, Hill 1987). More than 20 spe-
cies of midges are pests of mango, Mangifera indica L., in Brazil,
China, Guadeloupe, Hawaii, India, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mauritius,
Oman, Philippines, Re´union, South Africa, Taiwan, United Arab
Emirates, and many other parts of the world (De Villiers 1998,
Gagne´ 2004). Most species of gall midges attacking mango belong
to Dasineura or Procontarinia. These gall midges cause damage by
feeding on flowers and fruit tissues and making galls on the leaves
of mango trees (Uechi et al. 2002, Askari and Bagheri 2005,
Kolesik et al. 2009). Gall midge damage promotes the develop-
ment of epidemics of anthracnose, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides
Penzig and Saccardo (Uechi et al. 2002). Fruit losses due to an-
thracnose range from 2 to 39% in India (Prakash and Srivastava
1987).
Gall midges were not reported as pests of mango in Pakistan
until recently, and little knowledge exists of gall midge manage-
ment on mango in the region. By 2006, they were, however,
ranked as the number one pest of mango in Pakistan (Anonymous
2006). Gall midge attacking mango inflorescence in Pakistan
proved to be a species (Procontarinia mangiferae (Felt)) new to
the region but known in other countries, including Australia,
where it is found on mango throughout the year (Amouroux et al.
2013). In India, it emerges in January, peak in abundance in
March, and adults no longer present by April (Prasad 1971).
Consequently, we initiated studies on identification, damage pat-
terns, biology, and ecology of P. mangiferae to develop manage-
ment strategies for this and other gall midges associated with
mangoes in Pakistan.
Procontarinia mangiferae has been found in all the areas sur-
veyed in Punjab (Pakistan). It has spread widely from north-eastern
India (its native range), reaching Africa (Kenya, South Africa), the
Caribbean (Guadeloupe and other parts of the West Indies), South
America (Brazil), other parts of Asia (Iran, Java, Indonesia,
Thailand), and some Oceanic islands (Mauritius, Re´union Island;
De Villiers 1998, CABI 2004). Synonyms of Procontarinia mangi-
ferae are Erosomyia mangiferae (Felt) 1911, Mangodiplosis mangi-
ferae Tavares 1918, Rhabdophaga mangiferae Mani 1938, and
Erosomyia indica Grover 1965 (Gagne´ and Medina 2004,
Amouroux et al. 2013).
Although little is known about P. mangiferae, the biologies of
other two mango-feeding gall midges, Procontarinia matteiana
Kieffer & Cecconi and Dasinura amaramanjarae Grover, have been
reported (Rehman et al. 2013a,b, 2014). Procontarinia matteiana
damages mangoes by forming solitary or grouped galls on the upper
and lower surfaces of the leaves. It is active from February/March to
November, with two peaks of population, the first in March/April
and the second in September/October, when galls are the most abun-
dant. The phenology of two parasitoids, Closterocerus pulcherrimus
(Kerrich) (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) and Synopeas temporale
Austin (Hymenoptera: Platygasteridae), reared from galls of P. mat-
teiana was well-synchronized with that of their host (Rehman et al.
2013a).
Dasinura amaramanjarae adults are active from January/
February to April, with a peak of abundance in March. Females lay
eggs on flowers, and larvae, after feeding, drop to the soil under
mango trees for pupation and diapause (Rehman et al. 2013b).
Application of bifenthrin (Talstar 10EC) and seed kernel extracts
(neem seed kernel extract, NSKE), the latter together with raking of
soil under trees, proved best for control of this pest (Rehman et al.
2014).
Farmers rely on the use of pesticide sprays to control mango in-
sect pests in Pakistan (Saifullah et al. 2007). However, the intensive
use of pesticides may cause resistance, leave unwanted residues, and
kill natural enemies (Zadocks 1993, Dent 1995). To reduce pesticide
use, monitoring tools and management tactics for the early detection
of this pest are needed. Early detection could also allow the grower
to use non-chemical measures like biological control and cultural
measures more efficiently (Zijlstra et al. 2011).
Insects show differential responses to colors in selection of host
plants (Prokopy and Owens 1983). Sorghum gall midge,
Stenodiplosis sorghicola Coquillett, females prefer yellow to green,
red, or blue traps and respond more quickly to yellow, followed by
red, green, and blue traps (Sharma and Franzmann 2001).
Determination of color preferences of mango gall midges may be
helpful in developing traps for monitoring and management. Yellow
sticky traps have been used for the monitoring of the blueberry gall
midge Dasineura oxycoccana Johnson and the mango pest D. amar-
amanjarae (Plazanin et al. 2012, Rehman et al. 2014).
In India, pesticide application on mango trees and the soil under-
neath, at peak abundance of mango gall midge adults, provides ef-
fective control of P. mangiferae and other mango inflorescence gall
midges (Grover 1985). However, botanical pesticides and the use of
some cultural practices have potential to control these midges and
are more environmentally friendly. Botanical pesticides may reduce
the development of pest resistance, the need of pesticide applica-
tions, and the cost of pest management (Regnault-Roger 1997,
Khorram et al. 2011). Neem products have value in pest manage-
ment due to their selectivity toward phytophagous insects and mini-
mal toxicity to many beneficial insects (Naumann and Isman 1996,
Bhanukiran and Panwar 2000). In Nigeria, neem seed extracts sup-
pressed African rice gall midge, Orseolia oryzivora Harris and
Gagne´, populations (Ogah and Ogbodo 2012). In India, cleaning,
manuring, irrigating, and hoeing soil under mango trees helps con-
trol mango gall midges (Prasad 1966, Grover and Prasad 1966,
Grover 1985).
The goals of this study were to 1) conduct a regional survey in
Pakistan for the presence of P. mangiferae, 2) compare the severity
of infestation in commercial mango orchards with that in isolated
mango trees intercropped with other crops such as wheat or cotton,
3) determine the seasonal abundance of the gall midge, 4) evaluate
the relative effectiveness of different colored sticky traps in
monitoring P. mangiferae adults, and 5) compare the efficacy of var-
ious control methods for managing the pest.
Materials and Methods
Regional Surveys for P. mangiferae
Surveys were conducted for P. mangiferae on mango trees in seven com-
mercial orchards, divided among three regions of Punjab: 1) Tranda
Sway Khan (District Rahim Yar Khan, two commercial orchards), 2)
Regional Agricultural Research Institute (District Bahawalpur, two com-
mercial orchards), and 3) near Bahaudin Zakaria University at Bosan
Road (District Multan, three commercial orchards), from 2008 to 2010.
At each site, 10 inflorescences each from 10 to 12 mango tree were ex-
amined at least once a month. This was done as a regional survey to
gather data about the presence of the midge within 450km of the
Punjab province of the Pakistan (Fig. 1).
At an additional site in District Rahim Yar Khan, 10 inflores-
cences (having galls on leaves and damaged small fruits) were sam-
pled weekly from February to April of each year. Leaves bearing
galls or gall midge–damaged inflorescences and small fruits (as de-
termined by the presence of galleries and black spots) were ran-
domly selected on mango trees and brought to the laboratory. These
plant parts were placed individually in ventilated plastic jars (36 cm
in height and 8 cm in diameter) and held at 25C temperature and
70% relative humidity. The base of each part was dipped in water in
a small pan. When the larvae reached the final instar and emerged
from the plant tissue, they were collected with a camel hair brush
and for pupation were moved into small round jars (12.7 cm and di-
ameter 5 cm) containing a thin layer of moist soil. Adult gall flies
emerging from these pupae were collected by using an aspirator, pre-
served in 70–75% ethanol, and deposited as voucher specimens at
CABI – Central and West Asia, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Species were
Fig. 1. Survey and experimental sites at different mango-growing areas of
Punjab, Pakistan, used for the study of the mango gall midge, Procontarinia
mangiferae.
identified by Dr. Nigel Wyatt at the Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Rd, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom.
Damage Levels in Commercial Orchards Versus
Isolated Mango Trees
The severity of P. mangiferae infestations was determined in a com-
mercial orchard from each of the three regions from where explor-
atory searches were conducted (Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalpur, and
Multan), and also in isolated mango trees of three small-holding
farmers in the same regions in 2010 and 2011. In March of each
year, at each of these orchards, we randomly selected four trees and
collected 15 inflorescences per tree. A tree containing 15 samples
(inflorescences) was considered as a replicate. The inflorescences in
samples that had symptoms of damage (black spots with holes on
branches of inflorescence and small fruits) were considered infested.
Phenology of P. mangiferae Larvae
At one commercial mango orchard at Rahim Yar Khan, in each of
three years (2009–2011), we sampled larvae of P. mangiferae from
initiation of flowering to fruit maturity (February to April). For this
purpose, five trees of a commercially important variety of mango
(Chaunsa) were selected and on each tree, we cut two twigs (at
about 1.5 m above the ground) with inflorescences weekly and
brought them to the laboratory. The lower ends of these inflores-
cences were placed in small jars (10 cm in height and 4 cm in diame-
ter) with water to support tissues and keep them from drying out
(one inflorescence per jar). They were then placed in large plastic
jars (36 cm in height and 8 cm in diameter) covered with muslin
cloth held in place with rubber bands. Emergence of P. mangiferae
was recorded daily and pooled on a weekly basis. After the fruiting
season reached a point when inflorescences were no longer avail-
able, leaves were sampled instead. From May to the end of January,
50 galled leaves were collected weekly and held until adult emer-
gence, using the methodology described for inflorescences above
(Rehman et al. 2013a).
Effect of Trap Color on Catch of P. mangiferae Adults
Three colors of sticky traps (10 by 10 cm; yellow, green, and blue)
were compared for capture of P. mangiferae adults from January to
April in 2011 and 2012 at one orchard in Rahim Yar Khan. There
we selected four mango trees and on each tree, placed six traps of
each color in horizontal arrangement (18 total). Each tree was con-
sidered a replicate. Six clear sticky traps were also placed as a con-
trol on each of the same four trees. Traps were left in place on trees
for 24 h in a given week and then brought into the laboratory, where
P. mangiferae adults were counted using a magnifying glass. This
process was repeated weekly for the 4 mo of the study.
Efficacy of Chemical or Cultural Control of
P. mangiferae
Trials on management of P. mangiferae were conducted at Rahim
Yar Khan in plots laid out in a randomized complete block design
(RCBD) in 2011 and again in 2012. Six treatments were assessed:
(T1) application of NSKE (10% sol.) on the soil under mango trees;
(T2) application of NSKE (10% sol.) on the canopy of mango trees;
(T3) application of NSKE on mango tree canopy with raking (hoe-
ing) of soil under the tree; (T4) raking (hoeing) of soil under the tree;
(T5) application of Talstar, 10 EC (Bifenthrin, FMC United group,
Lahore, Pakistan) on the canopy with a tractor-mounted boom
sprayer at 125 ml/250 liters (12.5 g/ha) of water for one hectare of
commercial formulation; and (T6) an untreated control. A water
solution of an NSKE was prepared by grinding and mixing 10 g of
seeds in100 ml of distilled water for 3-4 h in a beaker. The mixture
was then filtered through a muslin cloth (Singh and Singh 1998).
For the experiment, we selected five mango trees (Chaunsa vari-
ety) for each treatment (total of 30 trees in five blocks). Each tree
was considered as a replicate. The experiment was conducted twice
(2011 and 2012), and in each year, hoeing and applications of
NSKE were carried out from December to April (for 151 d) at fort-
nightly intervals, while bifenthrin was applied only once, in March.
A plastic sheet (1 by 1 m) was spread under the canopy of each tree,
and each day from February to April (in both 2011 and 2012), we
counted the number of P. mangiferae larvae that dropped onto the
sheets over a full 24 h.
Data Analysis
To analyze rates of damage among the three regions and between
the two orchard types, the percent infestation of inflorescences was
calculated and converted to means with standard errors
(mean6 SE). For each year’s data, Student t-tests were used to com-
pare the population of pests between the commercial orchards and
the trees grown by small farmers. Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to compare infestations of P. mangiferae on mango trees at
the three localities (Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalpur, and Multan)
among the commercial orchards and the trees grown by small farm-
ers. As P. mangiferae infestation approached 100%, arcsine trans-
formation was used to validate assumptions of ANOVA, i.e., the
normal distribution of population.
To analyze the effect of trap color on adult gall fly catch, we ana-
lyzed the data with ANOVA and differences among the treatments
were separated by the least significant difference (LSD) test
(Rehman et al. 2014). The same approach was used to analyze
counts of larval dropping from trees in the efficacy trial.
Results
Regional Surveys for P. mangiferae
The survey confirmed the presence of P. mangiferae in the three
regions.
Damage Levels in Commercial Orchards Versus
Isolated Mango Trees
Infestations of P. mangiferae were observed on inflorescence buds,
small leaves, branches (axillaries), and small fruits. Larvae galled in-
florescence buds, tunneled into branches (axillaries), and fed on
small fruits. In cases of severe damage, branches of inflorescences
were bent at a right angle (Fig. 2). The infested leaves, inflores-
cences, and fruits usually withered and dropped from the mango
tree. Mature larvae subsequently dropped to the soil for pupation.
In both years (2010 and 2011), damage levels were not signifi-
cantly different among the three study locations (Rahim Yar Kahn,
Bahawalpur, and Multan) among commercial orchards (2010:
F¼1.57; df¼2, 11; P<0.28 and 2011: F¼2.35; df¼2, 11;
P<0.17) or among isolated trees in small farms fields (2010:
F¼1.99; df¼2, 11; P<0.21 and 2011: F¼0.90; df¼2, 11;
P<0.45). In contrast, commercial orchards had significantly higher
infestations of P. mangiferae than isolated trees at Rahim Yar Khan
(2010: t¼48.18; df¼3; P<0.003 and 2011: t¼ -11.22; df¼3;
P<0.001), Bahawalpur (2010: t¼17.19; df¼3; P<0.0004 and
2011: t¼8.42; df¼3; P<0.003), and Multan (2010: t¼ -19.9;
df¼3; P<0.0003 and 2011: t¼ -8.4; df¼3; P<0.003; Fig. 3).
Phenology of P. mangiferae Larvae
Monitoring of P. mangiferae larvae at Rahim Yar Khan (February to
April) for 3 yr (2009 to 2011) showed the insect’s phenology to cor-
respond with mango flowering in February and March. Larvae were
first seen in February and were most abundant in mid-March (from
second to third week, with the number of larvae ranging from 118.4
to 192.25 per inflorescence). Populations declined to zero by the
third week of April and were not found thereafter in inflorescences.
Larvae were not seen again until the next flowering season (May to
January; Fig. 4).
Effect of Trap Color on Catch of P. mangiferae Adults
Monitoring of P. mangiferae adults, carried out in a mango orchard
at Rahim Yar Khan from January to April in 2011 and 2012, found
that colored sticky traps caught flies from January to April with
three peaks: the first in the last week of February (58.126 4.7 per
tree), the second in mid-March (57.56 3.4 per tree), and the third in
start of April (120 6 7.2 per tree; Fig. 5).The difference in captures
due to trap color was significant (F¼57.60; df¼3, 15; P<0.001),
with yellow catching the most flies, and control traps catching sig-
nificantly fewer flies than all colors (Fig. 6).
Efficacy of Chemical or Cultural Control of
P. mangiferae
Experiments to evaluate the efficacy of chemical and mechanical
management options at Rahim Yar Khan during the mango flower-
ing season (in 2011 and 2012) scored efficacy based on the number
of P. mangiferae larvae dropping onto plastic sheets under the
mango trees. The number of larvae differed among the treatments
(F¼125.98; df¼5, 29; P<0.001). The best two treatments (not
different from each other) were bifenthrin and NSKE sprayed on the
tree canopy combined with raking of the soil. In order of decreasing
effectiveness following these two treatments were 1) raking of soil
alone, 2) NSKE applied alone on tree canopy, and 3) application of
NSKE on the soil under mango tree. The highest numbers of larvae
were collected from the control (Fig. 7).
Fig. 2. Infestation of Procontarinia mangiferae: (A) exit holes, (B) gallery, (C) mango branch bent at a right angle, (D) damaged inflorescence, and (E and F)
damaged small sized mango fruits.
Fig. 3. Percent infestation of Procontarinia mangiferae on trees in commercial orchards and farmer fields at Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalpur, and Multan, Pakistan,
in 2010 and 2011.
Discussion
This is the first report of the distribution, damage patterns, intensity
of infestation, biology, monitoring, and management of P. mangiferae
in mango-growing areas of Punjab, Pakistan. Damage by P. mangi-
ferae has been reported in other mango-growing areas of the world,
including Iran (Pezhman and Askari 2004, Askari and Bagheri 2005)
and India (Prasad 1966), and the damage in Pakistan followed a simi-
lar patter as in India, with three generations of P. mangiferae, the first
generation usually inducing blister-like galls on fleshy leaves sur-
rounding the flower buds, the second generation feeding on inflores-
cences, and the third generation attacking small fruits.
Cultural practices appear to partially suppress the pest, given that
P. mangiferae populations were significantly higher on mango trees in
commercial orchards than isolated trees at all study locations. Several
factors may be responsible for this trend, including the lack of addi-
tional resources for the gall midge to feed on in the immediate area of
the isolated mango trees on the small farm, the greater use in small-
holders’ fields of crop rotation, and higher frequencies of soil distur-
bance (typically10 cultivations and five hoeings annually; Khalil and
Amanullah 2002). In India, hoeing of soil under mango trees also re-
duced gall midge populations (Prasad 1966, Grover and Prasad 1966).
Our findings on gall midge phenology and voltinism were similar
to those of Prasad (1971) and Grover (1986), who reported that fe-
males of P. mangiferae laid eggs on inflorescences, and that larvae
after hatching penetrated into various mango tissues, dropped to the
ground after feeding in their final instar, and entered the soil, and
adults, upon emergence, caused outbreaks on mango during flower-
ing in India. The whole population enters diapause after the flower-
ing season (Prasad 1971). New adults emerge in January, peak in
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
F1 F2 F3 F4 M1 M2 M3 M4 A1 A2 A3 A4
N
um
be
rs
 o
f l
ar
va
e/
in
flo
re
sc
en
ce
Months and weeks
Fig. 4. Mean numbers (mean6SE) of Procontarinia mangiferae larvae per inflorescence at Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan, in the months of February, March, and
April (mean population from 2009 to 2011).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
J1 J2 J3 J4 F1 F2 F3 F4 M1 M2 M3 M4 A1 A2 A3 A4
W
ee
kl
y 
ca
tc
he
s 
of
 a
du
lt
s/
tr
ee
Months and weeks
Fig. 5.Monitoring of Procontarinia mangiferaewith yellow-colored traps at Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan (mean population from 2011 and 2012).
March, and disappear in April. In contrast, on Re´union Island, lar-
vae are found throughout the year, on inflorescences during flower-
ing and on leaves during the vegetative period. Densities of P.
mangiferae are higher during flowering season from June to October
than during the period of vegetative growth from November to
May. This longer duration of the active larval population in
Re´union may be attributed to the sporadic production of new
inflorescences and leaves throughout the year and the ability of
P. mangiferae to feed on different parts of mango trees under diverse
eco-cultural conditions (Amouroux et al. 2013).
Traps for monitoring adult flight are used for many insects, and yel-
low-colored traps are usually the most effective color (Conway 1984).
Trap catches can help to time pesticide applications (Vale 1982,
Grieshbach 2011). Yellow traps have been used to monitor sorghum
gall midge (S. sorghicola), blueberry gall midge (D. oxycoccana), and
other phytophagous insects. As here, yellow traps are generally more
effective than green-, red-, black-, or blue-colored traps (Meyerdirk
et al. 1979, Sharma and Franzmann 2001, Plazanin et al. 2012).
It should be noted that weekly trap catches of P. mangiferae of the
most attractive colored traps were not consistent, but varied with sam-
pling dates in both seasons. Temporal variation toward color prefer-
ence has been reported for different insects. For example, adults of the
blunt-nosed leaf hopper, Limotettix vaccinii (Van Duzee) (Hemiptera:
Cicadellidae), on cranberry were most attracted to red traps in the early
season and then to yellow traps in the late season (Rodriguez-Saona
et al. 2012). Similarly, the attraction to color of pirate bugs and honey
bees was also influenced by the time of year (Rodriguez-Saona et al.
2012). The variation in color preference of P. mangiferae might be due
to the changes in the background color behind traps due to the occur-
rence of various phenological events in mango trees like flushing,
flowering, and fruit setting. Temporal variation in trap catch due to
trap background changes has also been reported for certain leafhoppers
(Saxena and Saxena 1975). In addition to background, winds may
have a passive effect on how well the small-sized gall midges (only 2–
3 mm in length) adhere to different colored traps. This hypothesis re-
quires further research, however, along with how weather more gener-
ally affects the abundance of midges in relation to trap color.
NSKE application integrated with raking the soil (for disturbing
pupating gall midges under mango trees) was the most effective
among the neem treatments, and this treatment was equivalent in ef-
ficacy with the conventional pesticide application, bifenthrin. In
Pakistan, this insecticide is usually recommended for controlling in-
sect pests of mango (Saifullah et al. 2007). In comparison, bifenthrin
is toxic to some hymenopteran parasitoids (Prabhaker et al. 2007),
whereas neem-based insecticides are safer for beneficial insects
(Caboni et al. 2006, Hasan et al. 1996, Gahukar 2000). Neem ex-
tracts integrated with other control measures can provide economi-
cal pest control (Gahukar 2000). In Nigeria, neem seed extracts
significantly suppressed African rice gall midge populations
compared with the control treatment (Ogah and Ogbodo 2012).
a
b b
c
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Yellow Green Blue Control
N
um
be
rs
 o
f a
du
lt
s/
tr
ee
Different color traps
Fig. 6. Comparison of different colored traps (mean6SE) for monitoring of
Procontarinia mangiferae at Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan. Bars topped with dif-
ferent letters are significantly different (LSD test, a¼0.05, P<0.05; mean pop-
ulation from 2011 and 2012).
d
bc
d
a
c
b
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Bifenthrin Canopy Canopy+Rake Control Raking Soil
W
ee
kl
y 
ca
tc
he
s 
of
 la
rv
ae
/p
la
s
c 
sh
ee
t
Treatments
Fig. 7. Means (mean6SE) of Procontarinia mangiferae population after different treatments at Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan. (1. Soil ¼ spray of neem on soil. 2.
Canopy ¼ spray of neem on canopy, 3. Bifenthrin¼ spray of bifenthrin on canopy, 4. Raking ¼ raking of soil, 5. Canopyþ rake ¼ spray of neem on canopyþ raking
of soil). Bars topped with different letters are significantly different (LSD test, a¼0.05, P<0.05; mean population from 2011 and 2012).
In India, soil preparation activities such as cleaning, manuring, irri-
gating, and hoeing also contribute to control of mango gall midges
(Prasad 1966, Grover and Prasad 1966, Grover 1985). The applica-
tion of NSKE integrated with these other cultural practices is an en-
vironmentally friendly management option for long-term and
sustainable control of this pest. More research, however, is needed
on the development of an economic injury threshold for this pest
and on the possible effects of area-wide application of NSKE.
In Pakistan, where the mango industry has been facing the prob-
lem of gall midges since 2005, farmers usually rely on pesticides for
the management of this pest. This study is an initial attempt to
understand the behavior of mango gall midges for developing long-
term management strategies on a large scale against the pest.
Acknowledgments
A financial grant provided by Pakistan Agricultural Research Council under
the Agriculture Linkage Program is gratefully acknowledged. We would espe-
cially like to thank Dr. M. Ashraf Poswal, Global Director, CABI Central and
West Asia, Rawalpindi, for his consistent support and encouragement during
the course of studies. This paper forms a part of the Ph.D. research work of
the first author.
References Cited
Amouroux, P., F. Normand, S. Nibouche, and H. Delatte. 2013. Invasive
mango blossom gall midge, Procontarinia mangiferae (Felt) (Diptera:
Cecidomyiidae) in Re´union Island: ecological plasticity, permanent and
structured populations. Biol. Invas. 15: 1677–1693.
Anonymous 2006. Assessment of mango diseases, pest and production prob-
lems in Pakistan. Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries,
Queensland Government, Australia, pp. 1–29.
Askari, M., and A. Bagheri. 2005. Biology and comparative morphology of
two cecid flies, Procontarinia mattiana and Erosomyia mangifera (Dip.:
Cecidomyiidae) in Hormozgan Province. J. Entomol. Soc. Iran 25: 27–42.
Barnes, H. P. 1948. Gall midges of economic importance. Vol. 3: Gall midges
of fruit. Crosby Lockwood and Son, Ltd., London.
Bhanukiran, Y., and V.P.S. Panwar. 2000. In vitro, efficacy of neem products
on the larvae of maize stalk borer Chilo partellus (Swin.). Ann. Pl. Protect.
Sci. 8: 240–2.
CABI 2004. Crop protection compendium, 2004 edn. CAB International,
Wallingford, United Kingdom.
Caboni, P., G. Sarais, A., Angioni, A. J. Garcia, F., Lai, F. Dedola, and P.,
Cabras. 2006. Residues and persistence of neem formulations on strawberry
after field treatment. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54: 10026–10032.
Conway, G. R. 1984. Tactical models, pp. 209–220. In G. R. Conway, (ed.),
Pest and pathogen control: Strategic, tactical and policy models. John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester.
De Villiers, E. A. 1998. The cultivation of mangoes. Institute for Tropical and
Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, South Africa.
Dent, D. 1995. Integrated pest management. Chapman and Hall, Wallingford,
United Kingdom.
Gagne´, R. J. 2004. A catalog of the cecidomyiidae (Diptera) of the world.
Mem. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 25: 1–408.
Gagne´, R. J., and C. D. Medina. 2004. A new species of Procontarinia
(Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), an important new pest of mango in the
Philippines. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 106: 19–25.
Gahukar, R. T. 2000. Use of neem products/pesticides in cotton pest manage-
ment. Intern. J. Pest Manage. 46: 149–160.
Grieshbach, J. 2011. Mango growing in Kenya. ISRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.
Grover, P. 1985. Protection of mango crop against newly discovered midge
pests. Cecidol. Int. 6: 35–40.
Grover, P. 1986. Population fluctuation of Erosomyia indica and Dasineura
amaramanjarae and extent of damage. Cecidol. Int. 7: 1–57.
Grover, P., and S. N. Prasad. 1966. Studies on Indian gall midges, XVI. Four
species of gall midges (Cecidomyiidae: Diptera) affecting inflorescence of
mango. Cecidol. Ind. 1: 1–19.
Hasan, M., F. Ahmad, A. Ali, andM. Ahmad. 1996. Some studies on the effect
of synthetic growth regulators and neem oil materials against sucking insect
pest of cotton. Pak. Entomol. 18: 24–27.
Hill, D. S. 1987. Agricultural insect pests of temperate regions and their con-
trol. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Khalil, I. A., and J. Amanullah. 2002. Cropping technology. National Book
Foundation, Islamabad, Pakistan, pp. 170–263.
Khorram, M. S., T. N. Nasabi, S. Jafarnia, and S. Khosroshahi. 2011.
The toxicity of selected monoterpene hydrocarbons as single compounds
and mixtures against different developmental stages of Colorado potato
beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata Say. J. Econ. Ent. 8: 404–416.
Kolesik, P., A. D. Rice, G. A. Bellis, and M. G. Wirthensohn. 2009.
Procontarinia pustulata, a new gall midge species (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae)
feeding on mango, Mangifera indica (Anarcadiaceae), in northern Australia
and Papua New Guinea. Aust. J. Entomol. 48: 310–316.
Meyerdirk, R. J., W. G. Hart, and J. A. Brunside. 1979. Evaluation of a trap
for the citrus black fly, Aleurocanthus woglumi (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae).
Can. Entomol. 111: 1127–1129.
Naumann, K., andM. B. Isman. 1996. Toxicity of neem seed extracts to larval
honeybees and estimation of damage from field application. Am. Bee. J.
136: 518–520.
Ogah, E. O., and E. N. Ogbodo. 2012. Comparative efficacy of neem seed ex-
tract with carbofuran in the management of African rice gall midge,
Orseolia oryzivora Harris and Gagne´ (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). J. Biol.
Agric. Healthcare 2: 147–153.
Pezhman, H., and M. Askari. 2004. A study on the biology of mango inflores-
cence midge in Hormozgan province. Appl. Entomol. Phytopathol. 72: 19–29.
Plazanin, M., T. G., Culjak, and I. Juran. 2012. Blueberry gall midge,
Dasineura oxycoccana Johnson, 1899 (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae), a new
blueberry pest in Croatia. J. Food. Agric. Environ. 10: 521–526.
Prabhaker, N., J. G., Morse, S. J. Castle, S. E. Naranjo, T. J. Henneberry, and
N. C. Toscano. 2007. Toxicity of seven foliar insecticides to four insect para-
sitoids attacking citrus and cotton pests. J. Econ. Entomol. 100: 1053–1061.
Prakash, O. M., and K. C. Srivastava. 1987. Mango diseases and their man-
agement – a world review. Today and tomorrow Pub., New Delhi.
Prasad, S. N. 1966. The relation of mango blossom midge (Dasineura amara-
manjarae) to the yield of mango. Cecidol. Ind. 3: 171–184.
Prasad, S. N. 1971. The mango midge pests. Cecidological Society of India,
Allahabad.
Prokopy, R. J., and E. D., Owens. 1983. Visual detection of plants by herbivo-
rous insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 28: 337–364.
Regnault-Roger, C. 1997. The potential of botanical essential oil for insect
pest control. Intl. Pest Manage. 2: 25–34.
Rehman, H. M., R., Mahmood, and M. Razaq. 2013a. Phenology, distribu-
tion, biology and population trends of Procontarinia matteiana Kieffer and
Cecconi (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 45:
941–947.
Rehman, H. M., R., Mahmood, andM. Razaq. 2013b. Phenology, population
dynamics and within tree distribution of Dasineura amaramanjarae Grover,
1965 (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) in Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 45:
1563–1572.
Rehman, H. M., R., Mahmood, and M. Razaq. 2014. Occurrence, monitoring
techniques and management of Dasineura amaramanjarae Grover (Diptera:
Cecidomyiidae) in Punjab, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 46: 45–52.
Rodriguez-Saona, C. R., J. A. Byers, and D. Schiffhauer. 2012. Effect of trap
color and height on captures of blunt-nosed and sharp-nosed leafhoppers
(Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and non- target arthropods in cranberry bogs.
Crop. Prot. 40: 132–144.
Saifullah, M., S., Muhammad, and T. E. Lodhi. 2007. Communication gap re-
garding plant protection, harvesting and post-harvest technologies among
the mango growers. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 44: 654–659.
Saxena, K. N., and R. C. Saxena. 1975. Patterns of relationships between cer-
tain leafhoppers and plants, Part III. Range and interaction of sensory stim-
uli. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 18: 194–206.
Sharma, H. C., and B. A. Franzmann. 2001. Orientation of sorghum midge,
Stenodiplosis sorghicola, females (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) to color and
host-odor stimuli. J. Agric. Urban Entomol. 18: 237–248.
Singh, S., and R. R. Singh. 1998. Neem (Azadirachta indica) seed kernel ex-
tracts and azadirachtin as oviposition deterrents against the melon fly
(Bactrocera cucurbitae) and the oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis).
Phytoparasitica 26: 191–197.
Uechi, N., F., Kawamura, M. Tokuda, and J. Yukawa. 2002. A mango pest,
Procontariniamangicola (Shi) comb. nov. (Diptera:Cecidomyiidae), recently
found in Okinawa, Japan. Appl. Entomol. Zool. 37: 589–593.
Vale, G. A. 1982. The trap-orientated behavior tsetse flies (Glossinidae) and
other Diptera. Bull. Entomol. Res. 72: 71–93.
Zadocks, J. E. 1993. Crop protection: why and how, pp. 48–60. In D. I.
Chadwick and I. Marsh (eds.), Crop protection and sustainable agriculture.
John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Zijlstra, C., I., Lund, A. F. Justesen, M. Nicolaisen, P. K. Jensen, V.
Bianciotto, K. Posta, R. Balestrini, A. Przetakiewicz, and E. Czembor.
2011. Combining novel monitoring tools and precision application technol-
ogies for integrated high tech crop protection in the future (a discussion doc-
ument). Pest Manag. Sci. 67: 616–625.