Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:47:47.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

MATING BEHAVIOR IN RHAGOLETIS POMONELLA (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE): II. TEMPORAL ORGANIZATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Ronald J. Prokopy
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin
Edward W. Bennett
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin
Guy L. Bush
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin

Abstract

Comparatively few laboratory-caged apple maggot flies, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh), of either sex arrived at the site of assembly for mating (ceresin wax oviposition domes) and no mating pair or ovipositing females were observed until the flies were 7–8 days old. From then on, the level of all three of these activities progressively increased.With respect to the time of day of activity, in the field, assembly of both sexes of flies on the fruit, mating, and oviposition all occurred predominantly during the afternoon on a day when the sun shone brightly throughout the 15-hr daylight period and the ambient temperature was 16 °C at dawn, 24.8° in mid-afternoon, and 17.5° at dusk. Little or no activities of these sorts occurred before mid-morning and toward dusk. In the laboratory, where light intensity was constant at 1000 lux during the 15-hr photophase, the temporal pattern of these activities was the same as in the field when laboratory temperature was programmed to be the same as in the field for the corresponding hour of daylight. However, when laboratory temperature was programmed to be constant at 24.8°, these activities occurred at a high rate throughout the photophase. None of these activities was observed to have been initiated in darkness. It is concluded that sexually mature apple maggot flies may assemble on the fruit, mate, and oviposit whenever temperature is favorable and light intensity is sufficient to permit adequate vision.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1972

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

Back, E. A. and Pemberton, C. E.. 1917. The melon fly in Hawaii. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 491, pp. 164.Google Scholar
Boyce, A. M. 1934. Bionomics Of the walnut husk fly, Rhagoletis completa. Hilgardia 8: 363579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, F. E. 1921. Walnut husk maggot. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 992, pp. 18.Google Scholar
Caeser, L. and Spencer, G. J.. 1915. Cherry fruit flies. Ont. Dep. Agric. Bull. 227, pp. 130.Google Scholar
Causse, R., Féron, M., and Serment, M. M.. 1966. Rythmes nycthéméraux d'activité sexuelle inverses l'un de l'autre chez deux Diptères Trypetidae, Dacus oleae Gmelin, et Ceratitis capitata Wiedemann. C. r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 262: 15581560.Google Scholar
Féron, M. 1962. L'instinct de reproduction chez la mouche mediterranéene des fruits Ceratitis capitata Wied. (Dipt. Trypetidae). Comportement sexuel. Comportement de ponte. Rev. Path. vég. Ent. Agric. Fr. 41: 1129.Google Scholar
Garmen, P. 1941. Control of the apple maggot. Conn. agric. Exp. Stn Circ. 145, pp. 1726.Google Scholar
McPhail, M. 1933. Observations on the Mexican fruit fly and some related species in Cuernavaca, Mexico, in 1928 and 1929. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. 255, pp. 124.Google Scholar
Myburgh, A. C. 1962. Mating habits of the fruit flies Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and Pterandrus rosa (Ksh.). South African J. Agric. Sci. 5: 457464.Google Scholar
Myers, K. 1952. Oviposition and mating behavior of the Queensland fruit-fly [Dacus (Strumeta) tryoni (Frogg.)] and the solanum fruit-fly [Dacus (Strumeta) Cacuminatus (Hering)]. Australian J. Sci. Res. (B) 5: 264281.Google ScholarPubMed
Peterson, A. 1923. The pepper maggot, a new pest of peppers and eggplants. New Jersey agric. Exp. Stn Bull. 373, pp. 123.Google Scholar
Porter, B. A. 1928. The apple maggot. U.S. Dep. Agric. tech. Bull. 66, pp. 148.Google Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. 1968. Visual responses of apple maggot flies, Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae): Orchard studies. Ent. exp. appl. 11: 403422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J., Bennett, E. W., and Bush, G. L.. 1971. Mating behavior in Rhagoletis Pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae). I: Site of assembly. Can. Ent. 103: 14051409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. and Boller, E. F., 1970. Artifical egging system for European cherry fruit fly. J. econ. Ent. 63: 14131417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roan, C. C., Flitters, N. E., and Davis, C. J.. 1954. Light intensity and temperature as factors limiting the mating of the oriental fruit-fly. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 47: 593594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severin, H. H. P. 1917. The currant fruit fly. Maine agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 264: 177247.Google Scholar
Uhler, L. D. 1951. Biology and ecology of the goldenrod gall fly, Eurosta solidaginis (Fitch). Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn Mem. 300, pp. 151.Google Scholar
Wiesmann, R. 1937. Die Orientierung der Kirschfliege, Rhagoletis cerasi L., bei der Eiablage. (Eine sinnesphysiologische Untersuchung). Landw. Jb. Schweiz 51: 10801109.Google Scholar