Attraction and feeding responses of Mediterranean fruit fly and a natural enemy to protein baits laced with two novel toxins, phloxine B and spinosad^a

Abstract

Studies were conducted to determine attraction and feeding propensity of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), to different protein bait mixtures with and without the insecticides malathion, spinosad, and phloxine B. Protein baits were more attractive to females than to males. Protein‐starved females responded more than protein‐fed females. The type of protein (USB® yeast hydrolysate enzymatic, Mazoferm®E802, Nu‐Lure®Insect Bait, or Provesta® 621 autolyzed yeast extract) in the bait had a major influence on C. capitata attraction, which was strongest to fresh Provesta. Aged baits (four day‐old) were not as attractive as fresh baits. In feeding propensity studies, highest response was observed for USB protein. On the basis of attraction and feeding responses Provesta (attraction and feeding) and USB (feeding) outperformed the standard Nu‐Lure. Protein‐starved flies were much more likely to feed on protein compared to protein‐fed flies. For protein‐starved flies, a mixture of Provesta and malathion repelled fruit flies, compared to a mixture of Provesta and spinosad or phloxine B. This was not the case with protein–fed flies. The wasp Fopius arisanus (Sonan), one of C. capitata's primary natural enemies in Hawaii, would not consume protein baits. Our studies suggest that spinosad or phloxine B, with low contact toxicity, mixed with protein baits offers a more environmentally friendly choice for control of C. capitata and conservation of F. arisanus, whereby the nontarget effects of broad spectrum contact poisons such as malathion can be avoided. Presumably, due to greater selectivity with spinosad and phloxine B bait treatments, the host would be killed, but not the natural enemy.

Weaver Ant Oecophylla longinoda Latreille (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) Performance in Mango and Cashew Trees Under Different Management Regimens

“…This is of importance as spinosad have proven effective against fruit flies in mango (Prokopy et al, 2003;Wang et al, 2005;Vayssières et al, 2009) and against thrips in cashew (Anato et al, 2015) and since these species are important pest in West Africa (Vayssières et al, 2008;Anato et al, 2015), the efficiency of pest control may be advanced by combining weaver ants with GF-120. This is in concordance with previous studies demonstrating that GF-120 had no detectable effect on beneficial insects such as the parasitoids Aphytis spp (Thomas & Mangan, 2005) and Fopius arisanus (Sonan) (Vargas et al, 2002). According to Stark et al (2004) parasitoids are less susceptible than fruit flies to spinosad (Provesta protein bait spray).…”

Effect of spinosad bait against Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and Anastrepha fraterculus (Wied.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in laboratory

“…Based on field cage studies, Vargas et al (2002) verified that C. capitata females fed longer on spinosad bait than on malathion bait. Due to additional advantage of its selectivity to the braconid parasitoid Fopius arisanus (Sonan), the authors considered spinosad a viable alternative to substitute malathion on fruit fly suppression programs.…”

The Hawaii fruit fly areawide pest management programme.

“…• Application of protein bait sprays (Peck and J\;fcQuate, 2000;Vargas et at., 2001Vargas et at., , 2002Prokopy et at., 2004).…”

“…It is effective against tephritids in doses as low as 1 ppm in the laboratory. The low toxicity of spinosad towards beneficial insects allows it to be incorporated into many integrated pest management programmes that rely heavily on predators and parasitoids (Vargas et al, 2000(Vargas et al, , 2002.…”

“…The initial successes of spinosad bait sprays were demonstrated with medfly (Peck and McQuate, 2000) and, subsequently, with melon fly (Prokopy et ai., 2003). GF-120 was in the top group of proteins screened and generally rated higher than Nu-Lure, particularly when tested with protein-deprived flies (Vargas et al, 2002(Vargas et al, , 2007aProkopy et al, 2003;Vargas and Prokopy, 2007).…”