Field Trials of Solid Triple Lure (Trimedlure, Methyl Eugenol, Raspberry Ketone, and DDVP) Dispensers for Detection and Male Annihilation of <I>Ceratitis capitata</I>, <I>Bactrocera dorsalis</I>, and <I>Bactrocera cucurbitae</I> (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hawaii

Abstract

Solid Mallet TMR (trimedlure [TML], methyl eugenol [ME], raspberry ketone [RK]) wafers and Mallet CMR (ceralure, ME, RK, benzyl acetate) wafers impregnated with DDVP (2,2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate) insecticide were measured in traps as potential detection and male annihilation technique (MAT) devices. Comparisons were made with 1) liquid lure and insecticide formulations, 2) solid cones and plugs with an insecticidal strip, and 3) solid single and double lure wafers with DDVP for captures of Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann); oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel; and melon fly, B. cucurbitae Coquillett. Bucket and Jackson traps were tested in a coffee plantation near Eleele, Kauai Island, HI (trials at high populations) and avocado orchards near Kona, HI Island, HI (trials at low populations). Captures of all three species with Mallet TMR were not different from Mallet CMR; therefore, subsequent experiments did not include Mallet CMR because of higher production costs. In MAT trials near Eleele, HI captures in AWPM traps with Mallet TMR wafers were equal to any other solid lure (single or double) except the Mallet ME wafer. In survey trials near Kona, captures of C. capitata, B. cucurbitae, and B. dorsalis with Mallet TMR wafers were equal to those for the standard TML, ME, and C-L traps used in FL and CA. A solid Mallet TMR wafer is safer, more convenient to handle, and may be used in place of several individual lure and trap systems, potentially reducing costs of large survey and detection programs in Florida and California, and MAT programs in Hawaii.

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

“…To minimize worker risk owing to inadvertent spillage and exposure, field tests, conducted primarily in Hawaii, have compared the efficacy of the standard liquid formulation with different solid dispensers containing ME and CL separately or in combination in the same device. In general, studies Suckling et al 2008;Jang 2011;Jang et al 2013;Vargas et al 2009Shelly 2010b;Shelly et al 2011a, b;Leblanc et al 2011) have shown that the solid dispensers perform as well as or even better than the liquid application (but see Wee and Shelly 2013 for an exception). Interestingly, two studies Shelly et al 2012b) conducted in Hawaii further reported that traps baited with solid wafers containing ME, RK, and TML captured as many males of B. dorsalis, B. cucurbitae, and C. capitata as traps baited with a single lure in liquid form.…”

“…The carcinogencity of the terminal carbon fluorinated compound has not yet been determined, but, if negative, FME could serve as an excellent replacement for ME in trapping programs. Jang et al (2011) synthesized two additional fluorinated ME analogs, 1-(3,3-difluoroprop-2-en-1-yl)-2-fluoro-4,5-dimethoxybenzene, a ME analog trifluorinated at the 4 position of the aromatic ring and at the terminal carbon of the side chain, and 1-fluoro-2-(3-fluoroprop-2-en-1-yl)-4,5-dimethoxybenzene, a ring and side-chain difluorinated analog. Although B. dorsalis males were attracted strongly to and fed on the trifluoroanalog and difluoroanalog in a cage experiment, field attractiveness of male oriental fruit fly to both was markedly lower than to ME.…”

“…This program registered new technologies for farmers and homeowners 502 R.I. Vargas et al and promoted the use of safer or reduced risk fruit fly protein baits and MAT traps (Vargas et al 2008a in what became popularly referred to as the 1 (sanitation), 2 (protein bait), 3 (male lure trapping) program for fruit fly control (UHCTAHR 2010;Vargas et al 2011). MAT involved mass trapping using the male lures ME, CL/RK, and TML with an approved killing agent or, with certain traps, with no insecticide at all.…”

“…The one-way trap described by Tan (1985), and later tested by and Jang (2011), is a modified bucket trap in 526 V. Navarro-Llopis and S. Vacas which microcentrifuge tubes are inserted in the four lateral holes of the trap. The tip of the microcentrifuge tubes was cut off leaving a tapered tube containing a ca.…”

Can we replace toxicants, achieve biosecurity, and generate market position with semiochemicals?

“…For most other organisms, there is a more limited history of responses using benign materials such as pheromones or other semiochemicals, although there are examples including the use of mating disruption (Kean et al, 2015); Table 1. Future surveillance tools could include multiple species traps, (Vargas et al, 2012;Brockerhoff et al, 2013) or generic floral or other lures to widen the target group (El-Sayed et al, 2008) but innovation is needed in socially-acceptable eradication tactics also. Examples include attempts to develop novel control tactics based on cross species communication disruption between fruit flies (Suckling et al, 2007), release of sterile male Mediterranean fruit flies treated with moth sex pheromone for mating disruption, and trail pheromone disruption of ants (Suckling et al, 2012a;Westermann et al, 2014).…”