Research Article

Role of Sorting Efficiency at Packing Stations in Reducing Fruit Fly-Infested Mangoes at Post-Harvest Stage in Western Burkina Faso

Jérémy Kaboré1, 3*, Rémy Anogmain Dabiré1, Sylvain Nafiba Ouédraogo2, Lucien Sawadogo4, Muhammad Umair Ajmal5, Muhammad Zeeshan Majeed6*, Issaka Zida1, Hervé Bama1

1Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles, Station de Farako-bâ, BP 910, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso; 2Université Daniel Ouézzin Coulibaly: Institut des sciences de l’Environnement et du Développement rural (ISEDR) BP 176, et Comité permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel (CLISS), Dédougou, Burkina Faso; 3Université Nazi Boni, 01 BP: 1091 Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso; 4Ministère de l’Agriculture des ressources animales et halieutiques: Direction de la Protection des végétaux et du conditionnement, 01 BP 5362 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso; 5Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, 38000 Faisalabad, Pakistan; 6Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, 40100 Sargodha, Pakistan.

Received | January 21, 2026; Accepted | April 11, 2026; Published | July 21, 2026

*Correspondence | Muhammad Zeeshan Majeed, Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles, Station de Farako-bâ, BP 910, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso; Jérémy Kaboré, Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, University of Sargodha, Pakistan Email: [email protected]

Citation | Kaboré, J., R.A. Dabiré, S.N. Ouédraogo, L. Sawadogo, M.U. Ajmal, M.Z. Majeed and H. Bama. 2026. Role of sorting efficiency at packing stations in reducing fruit fly-infested mangoes at post-harvest stage in Western Burkina Faso. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 42(3): 1276-1284.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2026/42.3.1276.1284

Keywords | Mango export, Postharvest sorting, Fruit fly infestation, Pest detection, Africa, Packing stations, Quarantine measures

Copyright: 2026 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Introduction

Mango cultivation is one of the major agricultural production sectors in Burkina Faso and generates annually more than 17.6 million USD revenue (MASA, 2014; APEMA-B, 2018). In 2021, national mango exports totaled 12 thousand tons, generating about 13.9 million USD (APROMAB, 2018). During the 2021 campaign, the total quantity of fresh mangoes produced was estimated at 199 thousand tons, equating to an average yield of about 9.51 tons per hectare, and it was 27% less than the 2020 campaign, with an estimation of 271 thousand tons (UNPEM-B, 2021). This decline in mango production can be attributed to several factors, including abiotic, biotic, and socio-economic constraints faced by this sector (Bota et al., 2018).

The main biotic constraint encountered by the mango production sector is the incidence of fungal diseases and insect pests (Ngamo et al., 2010; Ouedraogo et al., 2011; Song-Naba, 2017; Karim et al., 2025). Among insect pests, fruit flies are the most significant pest affecting mango fruits (Ekesi et al., 2009; Lloyd et al., 2010; Ouédraogo, 2011; Gomina, 2015; Isabirye et al., 2015; Zida et al., 2023; Babar, 2025). In the context of the export market, the financial impact of these insect pests is considerable, as they are categorized as destructive quarantine pests (N’Depo et al., 2009; CTA, 2013; Opoku et al., 2025). Losses incurred by the fruit flies are reflected in the interception and incineration of mango containers at the exporter’s expense upon the detection of at least one fruit fly larva in the mango fruit (Pouillès-Duplaix, 2008; CTA, 2013). During the 2022 mango season, about twenty mango containers from Burkina Faso were intercepted due to the presence of fruit fly larvae (EUNSPH, 2022), inflicting about 1.0 million USD loss. This situation gives rise to questions regarding the efficiency of sorting operations at packing stations.

A variety of control measures have been developed and implemented at the orchard level, utilizing fruit fly trapping methods with pheromones and food baits (Nanga Nanga et al., 2022; Zida et al., 2023; Opoku et al., 2025). While this control method is effective in reducing pest infestations, it is important to note its limitations. Later on, the larval populations that escape these control measures are then detected at the fruit sorting stations. It is vital to develop the technical capacities required to effectively monitor and identify the infested mango fruits. To date, there has been limited research conducted on the detection and management of fruit fly infestation in fresh mango packing stations, to identify responsibilities along the packing line and develop suitable solutions (Parrot et al., 2022).

As the protection of export-quality agricultural produce, including mango fruits depend on the integrated pest management and precision agricultural techniques (Kebe et al., 2023), this study was initiated at New Koba Ranch Company (3828 Bobo Dssoifu, Burkina Faso) during the 2022 season. The study was repeated at three packing stations during the 2022 and 2023 seasons. The objective of the study was to enhance the post-harvest management of fruit fly-related issues in mangoes, with a view to minimizing interceptions and augmenting mango exports from Burkina Faso. The study objectives were threefold: firstly, to assess the importance of fruit fly infestations on mango consignments received at the packing station; secondly, to assess the importance of fruit fly infestations in mangoes after sorting at the packing station; and thirdly, to measure the contribution of sorting step at the packing station in reducing fruit fly infestations in post-harvest mangoes destined for export.

Materials and Methods

Study site and mango export companies

The study was conducted in the western part of Burkina Faso in the city of Bobo Dioulasso, where the majority of fresh mango packing facilities are located. The companies involved in this study were New Koba Ranch Company, Burkina Agro Company, and Fruit Terminal Management Companies, targeting the markets of France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, England, Libya, Morocco, Kuwait, and the USA. The fruit products of these companies are collected from different regions of Burkina Faso and are usually certified according to the standards of Organic, Ecossert, Global-GAP, BSCI, HACCP, and NOP. All mango growers, whether organic or conventional, are well registered and coded in the traceability system.

Fruit and pest sampling protocol

The Kent and Keitt varieties of mango were used as the plant material. It is important to acknowledge the appreciation of these varieties by the importing countries. One category of these fruits was subjected to post-harvest sorting in the field, while the other was subjected to further sorting at the packing station. The insect pest material comprised eggs and different larval stages of fruit flies found in the infested fruit, and pupae collected during the incubation period. For the incubations, plastic basins with a capacity of 10 liters were used, in which sterilized sand was filled and were closed with coarse-mesh netting, muslin cloth, plastic rings, and an incubation cage. Pupae were placed in labelled glass Petri plates.

Mango fruits sorting at the packing station was based on the relevant sanitary and phytosanitary standards and requirements. These requirements include major quality issues such as disease (e.g. anthracnose, bacteriosis, rot, and mold around the mango stalk), insect pests (e.g. fruit flies and mealybugs), and soft noses. The sorting process was conducted manually, with the mango anomalies being identified by women labor with training in their recognition. From a fruit fly management point of view, the sorting process was based on the observation of the ovipositioning points by female flies. At the sorting table, each mango was carefully inspected to ascertain any potential ovipositioning points, and those that do not meet the required standards were then discarded.

Mangoes sampling

Mango samples were taken at two levels of the packing line. Frist at the reception of fruits at the dock, sourced from various orchards and delivered by trackers to packing stations. These fruits have been meticulously sorted in the field to ensure adherence to rigorous sanitary, phytosanitary, and quality standards, with no evidence of fruit fly infestation. Secondly, the post-sorting fruits were taken, which were ready to be exported. In accordance with the regulatory and commercial requirements of the destination market, these have been sorted and are considered to be free from fruit fly infestation.

At the packing station, forty mangoes from each of the two levels were selected on a random basis depending on their geographical origin. In accordance with the established rhythm of mango supply, three samples were collected from each packing station on a weekly basis. During the 2022 campaign, a total of 30 samples were collected from each station, with 15 samples being collected from each level of the packing line. During the 2023 campaign, 36 samples were taken from each packing station, including 18 at each level of the packing line. The mango samples collected were labelled and transported to the laboratory for incubation, monitoring, and fruit fly pupal collection.

Fruit incubation and infestation assessment procedure

The fruits were incubated in a shaded facility. This enabled the progression of the tephritid immature stages in mangoes, facilitating the identification of affected mangoes. The process involved placing the batches of mangoes in plastic pots (10 L capacity) containing sterilized sand and a coarse-mesh screen placed beneath. The label pot is covered with a muslin cloth fabric, held in place by an elastic ring. The set is placed in incubation cages. For monitoring of pupae, the pots were removed from the cages at 5-day intervals, and sand was sieved to collect the pupae. The identification of mango infestations has been based on descriptions provided by Zida et al. (2023). The Petri plates were used to collect the pupae, and the fruits containing larvae were again placed under incubation for further detection.

The infestation levels of mangoes were evaluated at the reception and again after sorting at the packing station. At both levels of the supply chain, the assessment was based on determining the average number of infested mangoes. The infestation rate (%) was obtained using the following formulae:

Statistical analysis

Data regarding the fruit infestation was processed in MS Excel. This facilitated the calculation of the average number of infested mangoes and the infestation rates. The statistical analysis was conducted using Genstat® Discovery Edition 4 software. A student Newman-Keuls test was carried out to compare the mean infestation rates of fruit samples at the reception with those of the sorted samples in packing stations. The test was conducted at a confidence level of 95% in order to assess the efficiency of the sorting process at the packing stations.

Results

Fruit fly infestations recorded at the reception stage

According to the results of the 2022 season (Figure 1), the average number of infested fruits at the SN Ranch Koba varied between zero and four mangoes, with the former recorded in the week of 16 May and the latter in the week of 23 May. For SGTF, one mango throughout the study period was recorded. Agro B samples recorded zero infestation for the week of 25 April and two mangoes for the week of 23 May. In the 2023 campaign, the average number of infested fruits was one mango throughout the study period at the SN Ranch Koba, while it was zero and one at station SGTF. The average number of infested fruits at the Agro B station varied between one mango for the 24 April and first May and two mangoes for the samples of weeks of 8, 15, 22, and 29 May, respectively (Figure 2).

Fruit fly infestations recorded at the post-sorting stage

During the 2022 season, the average number of infested fruits among the samples of mangoes taken after sorting was found as follows: In the SN Ranch Koba packing station, it was zero for the week commencing from 2 May, and three for the weeks of 16 and 23 May. In SGTF station, the average number of infested mangoes varied. For the week of 9 to 16 May, one mango was found infested, and for the weeks of 25 April, 2 May, and 23 May, two infested mango fruits were recorded in the post-sorting stages. Regarding the samples from Agro B packing station, there had been a variation in the number of infested mangoes, ranging from one infested mango for the

 

 

weeks of 25 April, 9 May, and 16 May to two for the weeks of 2 May and 23 May (Figure 3).

Regarding the average number of infested fruits in 2023 (Figure 4), at the SN Ranch du Koba packing station, there was one mango for samples for all weeks except for the week of 8 May, where two infested mango fruits were recorded. In the SGTF packing station, the quantity of infested mangoes varied between zero for the week commencing from 8 May and one mango for the weeks of 24 April, 1 May, and 15 May. Regarding the Agro B packing station, the number of mangoes present in the samples has varied. During the weeks of 24 April, 1 May, and 15 May, there was zero fruit infestation, while in the week of 29 May, three mango fruits were found infested (Figure 4).

Role of sorting at the packing station in the reduction of fruit fly infestation

Table 1 presents the statistical analysis of the infestation rates for mango samples. This analysis was done for the fruit sampling period and source of supply for each of the three packing stations, and overall, for all packing stations combined. The results regarding the infestation rates of mangoes sampled at reception showed slightly higher average infestation rates at the SGTF station than those for the mangoes

 

 

sorted at SN Ranch Koba and Agro B. In contrast to the two stations previously tested, SGTF has achieved a higher average infestation rate for mangoes sampled after sorting than for those sampled at reception. In all stations, average infestation rates remained consistent for mango samples of both levels. Statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in infestation rates among the mango fruits at packing stations.

Role of sorting at the packing station in the reduction of fruit fly infestation during the 2023 season

Similarly, in the case of the 2023 season, mango fruits infestation rates were slightly higher at the SGTF packing station than those for mango fruits sorted at SN Ranch Koba and Agro B packing stations (Table 2). In contrast to the two stations previously tested, SGTF exhibited a higher average infestation rate for mangoes sampled after sorting than for those sampled at the reception stage. In all stations, average infestation rates remained consistent for mangoes of both levels. Moreover, statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in infestation rates between the fruits sampled at reception and those sampled at the post-sorting stage (Table 2).

Overall, the post-sorting infestation rates of mango fruits by fruit flies varied, on average, from 2.1% for SN Ranch du Koba and Agro B packing stations to 1.0% for SGTF packing stage. Our statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in infestation rates of mango fruits between the samples received at the reception and post-sorting stages for all packing stations.

Discussion

Extensive use of synthetic insecticides has been inevitable and common practice in fruit and vegetable production around the world, particularly in the developing countries, including Burkina Faso (Srinivasan et al., 2022). This results in risks of disruption of beneficial arthropods, environmental contamination, and human health hazards (De Bon et al., 2014; Ahmed et al., 2025; Majeed et al., 2025). This situation necessitates the search for alternative, more selective management steps in the value chain of fruits and vegetables (Lefèvre et al., 2020). This study assessed the prevailing scenario of fruit fly infestation in mangoes and the importance of practical implications of sorting efficiency at fruit packing stations.

Mango fruit samples were taken and inspected for fruit fly infestation at the reception facility and after routine sorting at different fruit packing stations in western Burkina Faso for the mango fruit seasons of 2022 and 2023. Results showed that the mangoes received at the packing stations were equally infested with those ready to be exported. Infestation in mango fruits overlooked by the field technicians gets detected at the reception stage, while those that

 

Table 1: Average infestation rates (means ± SE) of mango fruits sampled at the reception and after sorting at the packing stations during the 2022 season in bobo-dioulasso, burkina faso.

Sampling Station	Samples period			Supply source
	Reception	Sort	Reception # Sort	Reception	Sort	Reception# Sort
SN Ranch du Koba	4 ± 4	3 ± 3	p = 0.53 t = 0.64 df = 14	4 ± 4	3 ± 4	p = 0.3 t = 0.64 df = 14
SGTF	1.2 ± 2	3 ± 2	p = 0.95 t = -1.72 df =14	2 ± 2	3 ± 2	p = 0.93 t = -1.52df = 14
Agro B	3 ± 8	2 ± 2	p = 0.63 t = 0.49 df = 14	3 ± 2,6	2 ± 2	p = 0.63 t = 0.49df = 14
Overall (for all stations)	3 ± 1	3 ± 3	p = 0.86 t = -0.18df =44	3 ± 3,2	3 ± 2.6	p = 0.54 t = -0.09 df = 44

 

Table 2: Average infestation rates (means ± SE) of mango fruits sampled at the reception and after sorting at the packing stations during the 2023 season in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.

Sampling Station	Samples period			Supply source
	Reception	Sort	Reception # Sort	Reception	Sort	Reception #Sort
SN Ranch du Koba	2 ± 0.04	2 ± 0.1	p = 0.68 t = -0.42 df = 17	2 ± 0.1	2 ± 0.1	p = 0.84 t = 0.21df = 17
SGTF	2 ± 0.1	3 ± 0.03	p = 0.3 t = 1.08df = 14	2 ± 0.1	1 ± 0.03	p = 0.3t = 1.08df = 14
Agro B	0.4 ± 0.1	2 ± 0.1	p = 0.17t = 1.41df = 17	4 ± 0.1	2 ± 1	p = 0.17t = 1.41df = 17
Overall (for all stations)	6 ± 0.3	1 ± 0.1	p = 0.81t = 1.78df = 50	0.03 ± 3.2	0.03 ± 2.6	p = 0.54t = -0.09df = 50

 

escaped this stage were detected at the sorting stage and the packing stage. This explains why the infested mangoes that have escaped sorting in the field are either freshly infested by the fruit flies during the fruit supply chains and therefore are difficult to detect at this particular stage and often would cause substantial economic loss (Ouedraogo et al., 2011; Muriithi et al., 2016; Manrakhan, 2026), or the result of the careless attitude of the fruit sorting labor at the packing station (Bantayehu, 2025).

The lower number of infested fruits recorded at both levels of the packing line could be explained by a number of factors. There would be the effect of sorting carried out in the orchards and packing stations, the pre-rainy season of the study period, which reduces the risk of fruit fly populations’ expansion and infestation of mangoes (Vayssières et al., 2009). The application of good preventive and control practices against the fruit flies and other insect pests, such as ploughing, elimination of alternative host plants, and sanitation contribute to reducing infestations of mangoes (Muriithi et al., 2016). In the world, studies were effect on the ecology, knowledge and assessment of fruit fly infestations on fruit orchards or natural formations have showed that the population explosion of this insect correlates with humidity conditions and the period attractiveness of is host plants, and therefore the rainy season beginning (Ouedraogo et al., 2011; Konta et al., 2015; Zida, 2019).

Moreover, the statistical analysis revealed no significant differences in fruit infestation levels between the reception and post-sorting stages. Fresh mangoes during export can show fruit fly infestations, which explain the potential risk of larval detection at ports and airports and subsequent shipment interception and destruction (Kwasi, 2009). In fact, the study during the 2022 season showed that sorting performed at the sorting station reduced only 2.3% of the infested mangoes that arrived at the reception facility of the packing stations. During the 2023 season, it was found that the sorting at the station reduced only 13% of the infested mangoes that arrived at the reception. Therefore, about 97.7 and 87% of the infested mangoes that arrived at the reception decks were not eliminated by sorting at the packing stations for the 2022 and 2023 seasons, respectively. This means that visual detection during the manual sorting technique may not be efficient, and sufficient for the complete elimination of infested mangoes, demonstrating the inefficiency of the sorting stage.

Conclusions and Recommendations

It is concluded that mango fruits were found infested by fruit flies both at the reception facility and at the post-sorting stage for all three packing stations and for both mango seasons, resulting in 80 to 90% fruit infestation not detected and eliminated by the prevailing routine reception and sorting practices of the mango packing and exporting stations. It shows the inefficiency and inadequacy of the sorting techniques of the parking stations because the presence of insect infestation in mangoes ready for export maintains the risk of containers being intercepted at phytosanitary control facilities of the ports and airports. This opens a reflection on the possibility of improving the sorting of mangoes at packing stations. The development or adaptation of control methods regarding post-harvest management of fruit fly infestations, and new detection techniques for the infested fruits, are the future perspectives of this study.

Acknowledgments

The research work was effective with the participation of the Institut de l’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA) - Station of Farako-bâ, the Centre Régional d’Excellence en Fruits et Légumes (CRE-FL), the coordination of the Regional Innovative Fruit Fly Management System in West Africa (SyRIMAO) project financed by the EU/AFD/ECOWAS, the various general managers of the packing stations of the Société de Nouvelle Ranch du Koba, Société de Gestion des Terminaux Fruitiers, and Agro Burkina. We express our gratitude for their availability and for their multifaceted support and advice during the study.

Novelty Statement

This study evaluated the effectiveness of current fruit sorting practices at the packing stations regarding the fruit fly infestation detection in export-quality mangoes in Burkina Faso. Results exhibited significant fruit infestation both before and after sorting, with no significant differences among the stations and sorting stages. Notably, the existing sorting techniques failed to eliminate more than 95% infested fruits, indicating poor efficiency and a constant risk of export rejection.

Author’s Contribution

Sylvain Nafiba Ouédraogo: Conceived the idea and contributed to the drafting of the manuscript.

Jérémy Kaboré: Collected and analyzed the data, wrote the first draft.

Rémy Anogmain Dabiré: Designed and supervised the study.

Lucien Sawadogo: Financed the research work and technically reviewed the draft.

Muhammad Zeeshan Majeed and Muhammad Umair Ajmal: Prepared the results and technically revised the manuscript.

Issaka Zida: Supervised the study, elaborated the intellectual content, and technically proofread the draft.

Hervé Bama: Contributed to the drafting of the manuscript.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technology statement

The authors declare that no generative AI and AI assisted technology was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this work.

References

Ahmed, K.S., M.Z. Majeed and A.B.M. Raza. 2025. Lethal and sublethal effects of pesticides and their consequences on Trichogramma (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) biocontrol agents. Sarhad J. Agric., 41(4): 1763–1783. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2025/41.4.1763.1783

APEMA-B. 2018. Bilan de la campagne mangue 2018. Bobo Dioulasso, Burkina Faso.

Babar, T.K. 2025. Insect pests of mango: Identification, biology, and management strategies. In: Climate change and mango production: Potential adaptation and mitigation options. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pp. 563–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-XXXX-X_XX

Bantayehu, M. 2025. Assessing postharvest losses of tropical fruits at different handling stages in the supply chain of Ethiopia. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7663815/v1

Bota, L.D., B.G. Fabião, M. Virgilio, M. Mwatawala, L. Canhanga, D.R. Cugala and M. De Meyer. 2018. Seasonal abundance of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) on mango orchard and its relation with biotic and abiotic factors in Manica Province, Mozambique. Fruit., 73(4): 218–227. https://doi.org/10.17660/th2018/73.4.3

CTA. 2013. Guide pratique contre les mouches des fruits. CTA, No. 14.

De Bon, H., J. Huat, L. Parrot, A. Sinzogan, T. Martin, E. Malézieux and J.F. Vayssières. 2014. Pesticide risks from fruit and vegetable pest management by small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 34(4): 723–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0216-7

Ekesi, S., M.K. Billah, P.W. Nderitu, S.A. Lux and I. Rwomushana. 2009. Evidence for competitive displacement of Ceratitis cosyra by the invasive fruit fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) on mango. J. Econ. Entomol., 102(3): 981–991. https://doi.org/10.1603/029.102.0318

Europhyt (EUNSPH). 2022. Interceptions of harmful organisms in imported plants and other objects. European Commission.

Gomina, M. 2015. Contribution à la connaissance des mouches des fruits (Diptera: Tephritidae) et de leurs parasitoïdes au sud du Togo. Thèse Doctorale, Université de Lomé, Togo.

Isabirye, B.E., A.M. Akol, A. Mayamba, C.K. Nankinga and I. Rwomushana. 2015. Species composition and community structure of fruit flies across major mango growing regions in Uganda. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci., 35: 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742758415000089

Karim, N., Z.T. Cyrille and M.L.Y.D. Marie. 2025. Relationship between fruit flies and Xanthomonas citri pv. mangiferaeindicae. J. Exp. Agric. Int., 47(12): 756–771. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2025/v47i123975

Kebe, A.A., S. Hameed, M.S. Farooq, A. Sufyan, M.B. Malook, S. Awais and N. Abbas. 2023. Enhancing crop protection through precision agriculture and integrated pest management: A review. Asian J. Res. Crop Sci., 8(4): 443–453. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajrcs/2023/v8i4225

Konta, I.S., S. Djiba, S. Sane, L. Diassi, A.B. Ndiaye and K. Noba. 2015. Dynamique de Bactrocera dorsalis dans les vergers de mangues. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci., 9(6): 2698–2715. https://doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v9i6.15

Kwasi, W. 2009. Assessment of fruit fly damage in mango production in Ghana. J. Dev. Sustain. Agric., 3(2): 117–134.

Lefèvre, A., B. Perrin, C. Lesur-Dumoulin, C. Salembier and M. Navarrete. 2020. Challenges of agroecology in vegetable crop protection. Agric. Syst., 185: 102953. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102953

Lloyd, A.C., E.L. Hamacek, R.A. Kopittke, T. Peek, P.M. Wyatt, C.J. Neale and M. Elkema. 2010. Area-wide management of fruit flies in Australia. Crop Prot., 29: 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.11.003

Majeed, M.Z., M. Usman, M. Abbas, M. Luqman and A.B.M. Raza. 2025. Harmful effects of pesticide usage in fruits and vegetables production in Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric., 41(3): 1123–1132. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.sja/2025/41.3.1123.1132

Manrakhan, A. 2026. Systems approach for mitigating fruit fly risk. In: Fruit Flies of Economic Importance XI. CRC Press, pp. 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003644330-9

MASA (Le Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Sécurité Alimentaire). 2014. Société Commerce de mangues au Burkina Faso, atelier de formation et de sensibilisation des acteurs de la filière mangue aux normes de qualité. Ouagadougou. 1p. Burkina Faso.

Muriithi, B.W., H.D. Affognon, G.M. Diiro, S.W. Kingori, C.M. Tanga, P.W. Nderitu and S. Ekesi. 2016. Impact of IPM strategy for suppression of fruit flies. Crop Prot., 81: 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.12.012

Muriithi, B.W., G.M. Diiro, H. Affognon and S. Ekesi. 2016. Economic impact of IPM strategies for fruit flies in Africa. In: Fruit Fly Research and Development in Africa. Springer, Cham, pp. 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43226-7_33

N’Depo, O.R., N.F. Hala, K. Allou, L.R. Aboua, K.P. Kouassi and J.F. Vayssières. 2009. Abondance des mouches des fruits en Côte-d’Ivoire. Fruit., 64(5): 313–324. https://doi.org/10.1051/fruits/2009028

Nanga Nanga, S., R. Hanna, A. Fotso Kuate, K.K. Fiaboe, I. Nchoutnji, M. Ndjab and C. Djieto-Lordon. 2022. Fruit fly species composition and infestations. Insect., 13(11): 1045. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13111045

Ngamo, T.L., D. Ladang, J.F. Vayssières and J.P. Lyannaz. 2010. Diversité des mouches des fruits au Cameroun. Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci., 4(5): 1425–1434.

Opoku, E., M. Haseeb, E.J. Rodriguez, G.J. Steck and M.J. Cabral. 2025. Economically important fruit flies in Ghana. Insect., 16(3): 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects16030285

Ouedraogo, N.S. 2011. Dynamique des mouches des fruits au Burkina Faso. Thèse Doctorale, Univ. Paris Est, France.

Ouédraogo, S.N., J.F. Vayssières, A.R. Dabiré and C. Rouland-Lefèvre. 2011. Biodiversité des mouches des fruits au Burkina Faso. Fruit., 66(6): 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1051/fruits/2011054

Parrot, L., Y. Biard, D. Klaver, E. Kabré and H. Vannière. 2022. Assessment of mango supply chains in Burkina Faso. Sustain. Prod. Consum., 30: 1032–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.026

Pouillès-Duplaix, A. 2008. Lutte contre les mouches des fruits en Afrique de l’Ouest. COLEACP/CIRAD.

Song-Naba, F. 2017. PME agroalimentaires au Burkina Faso. RIMHE., 3(27): 29–58. https://doi.org/10.3917/rimhe.027.0029

Srinivasan, R., M. Tamò and S. Subramanian. 2022. Integrated pest management in Africa. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci., 54: 100970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2022.100970

UNPEM-B. 2021. Données statistiques de la production campagne mangue 2021. Burkina Faso.

Vayssières, J.F., S. Korie and D. Ayegnon. 2009. Correlation of fruit fly infestation in mango. Crop Prot., 28(6): 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2009.01.005

Zida, I. 2019. Statut des mouches des fruits au Burkina Faso. Thèse, Université Nazi Boni.

Zida, I., K. Nebie, A. Sawadogo, B. Tassembedo, T. Kienou, R.A. Dabire and S. Nacro. 2023. Effectiveness of IPM approaches in fruit fly control. Adv. Entomol., 11: 124–142. https://doi.org/10.4236/ae.2023.113010