Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:47:58.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of sugar-formulated triflumuron-treated targets on reproduction in the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

B.E. Mazomenos ,
D. Stefanou ,
P. Langley  and
A. Pantazi-Mazomenos
B.E. Mazomenos
Affiliation:
Institute of Biology NCSR “D”, PO Box 60228, 153 10 Aghia Paraskevi, Greece:
D. Stefanou
Affiliation:
Institute of Biology NCSR “D”, PO Box 60228, 153 10 Aghia Paraskevi, Greece:
P. Langley
Affiliation:
Pure and Applied Biology, University of Wales, Cardiff, PO Box 915, Cardiff, UK
A. Pantazi-Mazomenos
Affiliation:
Institute of Biology NCSR “D”, PO Box 60228, 153 10 Aghia Paraskevi, Greece:
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adult olive fruit flies Bactrocera (Dacus) oleae Gmelin were exposed for 24 h to 25 × 10 cm polyester target devices, impregnated with 3% a.i. triflumuron (2-chloro-n-[[[trifluromethoxy]phenyl]amino]carbonyl]benzamide), a chitin synthesis inhibitor, formulated in 10% w/v sugar solution and air-dried. Treated insects were tested for egg hatch inhibition and larval mortality. Inhibition of egg hatch and F1 larval mortality depended on the sex exposed and the elapsed time after exposure. Egg hatch was reduced to 37.6% and F1 larval mortality reached 100% when both exposed sexes were mated. Exposure of one sex prior to mating resulted in a lower level of egg inhibition and larval mortality; but exposure of females was more effective at inhibiting egg hatch and larval survival than exposure of males in these crosses. In flies exposed once, the residual activity of triflumuron decreased gradually, fifteen days post-exposure egg hatch and larval mortality reached 62% and 44% respectively. Target devices aged under natural conditions reduced egg hatch to an average of 39% and inhibited completely larval development for a period of four months.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , April 1997 , pp. 169 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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

Baker, R., Herbert, R., Howse, P.E., Jones, O.T., Francke, W. & Reith, W. (1980) Identification and synthesis of the major sex pheromone of the olive fly (Dacus oleae). Journal of Chemical Communication 1, 52–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, S.C. (1979) Laboratory evaluation of diflubenzuron, penfluron and Bay Sir 8514 as female sterilant against the house fly. Journal of Economic Entomology 72, 479–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagen, K., Santas, S.L. & Tsecuras, A. (1963) A technique of culturing the olive fly Dacus oleae Gmel. on synthetic media under xenic conditions. pp. 333–356 in Radiation and radioisotopes applied to insects of agricultural importance. Proceedings Symposium, Athens 22–26 April 1963. FAO/IAEA, Vienna, 512 p.Google Scholar
Haniotakis, G.E., Kozyrakis, M., Fitsakis, T. & Antonidaki, A. (1991) An effective mass trapping method for the control of Dacus oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 84, 564–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, J. & Wall, R. (1995) The use of triflumuron on sugar-baited targets for autosterilization of the housefly, Musca domestica. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 77, 159–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, F.W. & Herald, F. (1983) Mortality of eggs and larvae of the face fly (Diptera: Muscidae) after exposure of adults to surface treated with Bay Sir 8514 and penfluron. Journal of Economic Entomology 76, 1350–1352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knapp, F.W. & Cilek, J.E. (1988) Mortality of eggs and larvae obtained from house flies (Diptera: Muscidae) exposed to triflumuron residues. Journal of Economic Entomology 81, 1962–1964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazomenos, B.E. & Haniotakis, G.E. (1981) A multicomponent sex pheromone of Dacus oleae Gmel. Isolation and bioassay. Journal of Chemical Ecology 7, 437–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazomenos, B.E. & Haniotakis, G.E. (1985) Male olive fruit fly attraction to synthetic sex pheromone components in laboratory and field tests. Journal of Chemical Ecology 11, 397–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickens, L.G. & De Milo, B.A. (1977) Face fly: Inhibition of hatch by diflubenzuron and related analogues. Journal of Chemical Ecology 70, 595–597.Google ScholarPubMed
Tsitsipis, I.A. (1975) Mass-rearing of the olive fruit fly Dacus oleae (Gmel.) at “Demokritos”. pp. 93–100in Controlling fruit flies by the sterile insect technique. IAEA, Vienna STI/PUB/392.Google Scholar
Tsitsipis, I. A. (1977) An improved method for the mass rearing of the olive fruit fly Dacus oleae (Gmel.) [Diptera: Tephritidae]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie 4, 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, R. & Howard, J. (1994) Autosterilization of the housefly Musca domestica. Journal of Theoretical Biology 171, 431–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar