Effectiveness of Protein Baits on Melon Fly and Oriental Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): Attraction and Feeding

Abstract

Attraction and feeding responses of oriental fruit ßy, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), and melon ßy, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett), were determined for different protein baits. In separate choice attraction assays for each species, signiÞcantly more ßies arrived at stations with bait than water, but no differences existed among baits of GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait, GF-120 NF Naturalyte Fruit Fly Bait, Provesta 621 autolyzed yeast extract, and Mazoferm E802. In comparison with B. dorsalis, B. cucurbitae had 2.8 times more responders and a 4.8 times better discrimination between baits and water. In a second attraction assay with only B. dorsalis, volume of bait was negatively correlated to numbers of ßies alighting on the bait. Feeding assays for both species demonstrated that time spent feeding and duration on a leaf were both signiÞcantly affected by bait type. B. dorsalis fed the longest on Provesta 621, with signiÞcantly less feeding on the other baits, and with all baits resulting in more feeding than water. The longest feeding times for B. cucurbitae resulted with Mazoferm E802 and Provesta 621, and all baits except GF-120 NF resulted in eliciting a signiÞcantly longer feeding duration than water. In separate toxicology assays for each species, signiÞcantly higher mortality resulted from bait formulations containing spinosad compared with blank baits, but no differences existed between GF-120 and GF-120 NF formulations. The differences are discussed between the two Bactrocera species primarily in regard to bait preference, extent of response, and previous work on laboratory ßies.

Feeding and mating behaviour of Chinese citrus fly Bactrocera minax (Diptera, Tephritidae) in the field

“…In natural systems, fruit fly adults can feed on a wide variety of foods such as floral nectar, insect honeydew, leaf and fruit exudates, and other organic matter sources such as yeast, bacteria and bird faeces (Daane and Johnson 2010). However, the literature on the protein foraging behaviour of fruit flies in the field showed conflicting observations for different species (Barry et al 2006). For example, the melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae, enters the fruiting larvalhost patch (e.g.…”

Trapping and the Detection, Control, and Regulation of Tephritid Fruit Flies

“…Additionally, more females were attracted to Provesta and GF-120 than to the other two baits, and more males were attracted to GF-120 than NuLure, with intermediate attraction to Provesta and Masoferm. Barry et al (2006) found no difference in attraction of B. cucurbitae or B. dorsalis to GF-120, Provesta 621, and Masoferm in bioassays of F1 generation laboratory flies, and response to all baits was greater than to water. They also found higher numbers of B. cucurbitae responded to any protein bait than B. dorsalis.…”

Residual Control and Lethal Concentrations of GF-120 (spinosad) for Anastrepha spp. (Diptera: Tephritidae)

“…In a comparison of C. capitata and A. fraterculus (Wied. ), Raga and Sato (2005) found no difference in mortality using spinosad at concentrations Ͼ8 ppm, while Barry et al (2006) showed that two closely related species, Fig. 2.…”