Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:11:48.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparative assessment of the response of three fruit fly species (Diptera: Tephritidae) to a spinosad-based bait: effect of ammonium acetate, female age, and protein hunger

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 October 2010

J.C. Piñero ,
R.F.L. Mau  and
R.I. Vargas
J.C. Piñero*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, 3050 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822USA
R.F.L. Mau
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at Manoa, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, 3050 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822USA
R.I. Vargas
Affiliation:
US Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, USDA-ARS, PO Box 4459, Hilo, HI 96720USA
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: + 1 573 681 5313 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ammonia-releasing substances are known to play an important role in fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) attraction to food sources, and this information has been exploited for the development of effective synthetic food-based lures and insecticidal baits. In field studies conducted in Hawaii, we examined the behavioural response of wild female oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)), melon fly (B. cucurbitae (Coquillett)), and Mediterranean fruit fly (Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann)) to spinosad-based GF-120 NF Naturalyte Fruit Fly Bait© formulated to contain either 0, 1 or 2% ammonium acetate. Use of visually-attractive yellow bait stations for bait application in the field allowed for proper comparisons among bait formulations. Field cage tests were also conducted to investigate, using a comparative behavioural approach, the effects of female age and protein starvation on the subsequent response of F1 generation B. cucurbitae and B. dorsalis to the same three bait formulations that were evaluated in the field. Our field results indicate a significant positive effect of the presence, regardless of amount, of AA in GF-120 for B. dorsalis and B. cucurbitae. For C. capitata, there was a significant positive linear relationship between the relative amounts of AA in bait and female response. GF-120 with no AA was significantly more attractive to female C. capitata, but not to female B. dorsalis or B. cucurbitae, than the control treatment. Our field cage results indicate that the effects of varying amounts of AA present in GF-120 can be modulated by the physiological stage of the female flies and that the response of female B. cucurbitae to GF-120 was consistently greater than that of B. dorsalis over the various ages and levels of protein starvation regimes evaluated. Results are discussed in light of their applications for effective fruit fly suppression.

Keywords

GF-120 NF Naturalyte Fruit Fly Baitbehaviourfood baitsbait stationphysiological stateIPM
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 101 , Issue 4 , August 2011 , pp. 373 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barry, J.D., Miller, N.W., Piñero, J.C., Tuttle, A., Mau, R.F.L. & Vargas, R.I. (2006) Effectiveness of protein baits on melon fly and oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): attraction and feeding. Journal of Economic Entomology 99, 1161–1167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bateman, M.A. & Morton, T.C. (1981) The importance of ammonia in proteinaceous attractants for fruit-flies (family, Tephritidae). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 883–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenson, L.D. & Foote, R.H. (1960) Biology of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology 5, 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz-Fleischer, F., Arredondo, J., Flores, S., Montoya, P. & Aluja, M. (2009) There is no magic fruit fly trap: multiple biological factors influence the response of adult Anastrepha ludens and Anastrepha oblique (Diptera: Tephritidae) individuals to Multilure traps baited with Biolure or Nulure. Journal of Economic Entomology 102, 86–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dow AgroSciences (2006) Supplemental Labeling, approved 06/05/06. GF-120 NF Naturalyte® Fruit Fly Bait, Indianapolis, IN, USA.Google Scholar
DowElanco (1994) Spinosad Technical Guide. DowElanco, Indianapolis, Indiana.Google Scholar
Epsky, N.D. & Heath, R.R. (1998) Exploiting the interactions of chemical and visual cues in behavioral control measures for pest tephritid fruit flies. Florida Entomologist 81, 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epsky, N.D., Hendrichs, J., Katsoyannos, B.I., Vasquez, L.A., Ros, J.P., Zumreoglu, A., Pereira, R., Seewooruthun, S.I. & Heath, R.R. (1999) Field evaluation of female-targeted trapping systems for Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in seven countries. Journal of Economic Entomology 92, 156–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, R.R., Epsky, N.D., Midgarden, D. & Katsoyannos, B.I. (2004) Efficacy of 1,4-Diaminobutane (putrescine) in a food-based synthetic attractant for capture of Mediterranean and Mexican fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 97, 1126–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, R.R., Lavallee, S.G., Schnell, E., Midgarden, D.G. & Epsky, N.D. (2009) Laboratory and field cage studies on female-targeted attract-and-kill bait stations for Anastrepha suspensa (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pest Management Science 65, 672–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, C.D. & Cribb, B.W. (2001) Olfaction in the Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni. I: Identification of olfactory receptor neuron types responding to environmental odors. Journal of Chemical Ecology 27, 871–887.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jang, E.B., McQuate, G.T., McInnis, D.O., Harris, E.J., Vargas, R.I., Bautista, R.C. & Mau, R.F.L. (2008) Targeted cue-lure trapping, bait-spray, sanitation, sterile-male and parasitoid releases in an area wide integrated melon fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) control program in Hawaii. American Entomologist 54, 234–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leblanc, L., Vargas, R.I. & Rubinoff, D. (2010) Attraction of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) and endemic and introduced nontarget insects to Biolure bait and its individual components in Hawaii. Environmental Entomology 39, 989–998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mangan, R.L. (2009) Effects of bait age and prior protein feeding on cumulative tie-dependent mortality of Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae) exposed to GF-120 spinosad baits. Journal of Economic Entomology 102, 1157–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mangan, R.L. & Moreno, D.S. (2004) Dilution and persistence of baits and safer pesticides for spray application. pp. 305–312 in Barnes, B.N. (Ed) Proceedings of 6th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 6–10 May 2002, Irene, South Africa, Isteg Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Mangan, R.L., Moreno, D.S. & Thompson, G.D. (2006) Bait dilution, spinosad concentration, and efficacy of GF-120 based fruit fly sprays. Crop Protection 25, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazor, M. (2009) Competitiveness of fertilizers with proteinaceous baits applied in Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata Wied. (Diptera: Tephritidae) control. Crop Protection 28, 314–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazor, M., Gothilf, S. & Galun, R. (1987) The role of ammonia in the attraction of females of the Mediterranean fruit fly to protein hydrolysate baits. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 43, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McQuate, G.T., Sylva, C.D. & Jang, E.B. (2005) Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) suppression in persimmon through bait sprays in adjacent coffee plantings. Journal of Applied Entomology 129, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N.W., Vargas, R.I., Prokopy, R.J. & Mackey, B.E. (2004) State-dependent attractiveness of protein bait and host fruit odor to Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) females. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 97, 1063–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno, D.S. & Mangan, R.L. (2002) A bait matrix for novel toxicants for use in control of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). pp. 333–362 in Hallman, G. & Schwalbe, C.P. (Eds) Invasive Arthropods in Agriculture. Enfield, NH, USA, Science Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Peck, S.L. & McQuate, G.T. (2000) Field tests of environmentally friendly malathion replacements to suppress wild Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations. Journal of Economic Entomology 93, 280–289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelz-Stelinski, K.S., Gut, L.J. & Isaacs, R. (2006) Behavioral responses of Rhagoletis cingulata (Diptera: Tephritidae) to GF-120 insecticidal bait enhanced with ammonium acetate. Journal of Economic Entomology 99, 1316–1320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piñero, J., Aluja, M., Equihua, M. & Ojeda, M.M. (2002) Feeding history and age influence the response of four Anastrepha species (Diptera: Tephritidae) to human urine and hydrolyzed protein. Folia Entomologica Mexicana 41, 283–298.Google Scholar
Piñero, J.C., Jácome, I., Vargas, R.I. & Prokopy, R.J. (2006) Response of female melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae, to host-associated visual and olfactory stimuli. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 121, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñero, J.C., Mau, R.F.L. & Vargas, R.I. (2009a) Managing oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae), through spinosad-based protein bait sprays and sanitation in papaya orchards in Hawaii. Journal of Economic Entomology 102, 1123–1132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piñero, J.C., Mau, R.F.L., McQuate, G.T. & Vargas, R.I. (2009b) Novel bait stations for attract-and-kill of pestiferous fruit flies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 133, 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñero, J.C., Mau, R.F.L. & Vargas, R.I. (2010) Comparison of rain-fast bait stations versus foliar bait sprays for control of oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, in papaya orchards in Hawaii. Journal of Insect Science 10, 157. Available online at http://www.insectscience.org/10.157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prokopy, R.J. (1972) Response of apple maggot flies to rectangles of different colors and shades. Environmental Entomology 1, 720–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R.J. & Owens, E.D. (1983) Visual detection of plants by herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 28, 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R.J., Cooley, S.S., Luna, I. & Duan, J.J. (1995) Combined influence of protein hunger and egg load on the resource foraging behavior of Rhagoletis pomonella flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). European Journal of Entomology 92, 655–666.Google Scholar
Prokopy, R.J., Miller, N.W., Piñero, J.C., Barry, J.D., Tran, L.C., Oride, L. & Vargas, R.I. (2003) Effectiveness of GF-120 fruit fly bait spray applied to border area plants for control of melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 96, 1485–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R.J., Miller, N.W., Piñero, J.C., Oride, L., Chaney, N., Revis, H. & Vargas, R.I. (2004) How effective is GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait spray applied to border area sorghum plants for control of melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)? Florida Entomologist 87, 354–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roessler, Y. (1989) Insecticidal bait and cover sprays. pp. 329–335 in Robinson, A.S. & Hooper, G. (Eds) Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, vol. 3A. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier.Google Scholar
StatSoft (2001) STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. www.statsoft.com.Google Scholar
Steiner, L.F. (1955) Bait sprays for fruit fly control. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 5, 601–607.Google Scholar
Vargas, R.I. & Prokopy, R.J. (2006) Attraction and feeding responses of melon flies and oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to various protein baits with and without toxicants. Proceedings of the Hawaiian Entomological Society 38, 49–60.Google Scholar
Vargas, R.I., Peck, S.L., McQuate, G.T., Jackson, C.G., Stark, J.D. & Armstrong, J.W. (2001) Potential for areawide integrated management of Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) with a braconid parasitoid and a novel bait spray. Journal of Economic Entomology 94, 817–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas, R.I., Mau, R.F.L., Jang, E.B., Faust, R.M. & Wong, L. (2008) The Hawaii Fruit Fly Area-Wide Pest Management Program. pp. 300–325 in Koul, O., Cuperus, G.W. & Elliott, N.C. (Eds) Areawide IPM: Theory to Implementation. London, UK, CABI Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas, R.I., Piñero, J.C., Mau, R.F.L., Stark, J.D., Hertlein, M., Mafra-Neto, A., Coler, R. & Getchell, A. (2009) Attraction and mortality of oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to SPLAT-MAT-methyl eugenol with spinosad. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 131, 286–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vargas, R.I., Piñero, J.C., Jang, E.B., Mau, R.F.L., Stark, J.D., Gomez, L., Stoltman, L. & Mafra-Neto, A. Response of melon fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) to weathered SPLAT-spinosad-cuelure. Journal of Economic Entomology, in press.Google Scholar
Vargas, R.I., Piñero, J.C., Mau, R.F.L., Jang, E.B., Klungness, L.M., McInnis, D.O., Harris, E.B., McQuate, G.T., Bautista, R.C. & Wong, L. (2010) Area-wide suppression of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, and Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, in Kamuela, Hawaii. Journal of Insect Science 10, 135. Available online at http://www.insectscience.org/10.135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, I.M. & Elson-Harris, M. (1992) Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics. London, UK, International Institute of Entomology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, W.L. (2007) Attraction, feeding, and control of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae) with GF-120 and added ammonia in Washington state. Florida Entomologist 90, 665–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yee, W.L. (2008) Mortality of Rhagoletis indifferens exposed to hydrolyzed protein baits and spinosad in the absence and presence of yeast extract. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 129, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar