Intra‐tree foraging behavior of Dacus dorsalis flies in relation to host fruit quantity, quality and type

Abstract

We observed the fruit foraging behavior of mature female oriental fruit flies, Dacus dorsalis Hendel (Diptera, Tephritidae), released individually onto potted field‐caged host trees containing fruit of different quality, quantity, or type (no fruit, 3 or 12 uninfested kumquats, 12 infested kumquats, or 3 uninfested sweet oranges). Our findings were largely consistent with foraging‐behavior theory, and with previous results for Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), and the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh): (1) flies left fruitless trees soon after release, (2) more flies visited fruit, and flies visited more fruit and spent more time on trees with increasing fruit density, and (3) Giving Up Time (time between last oviposition and leaving the tree) was significantly greater for flies visiting infested fruit than for those visiting uninfested fruit. Oriental fruit flies declined to oviposit in fruit containing conspecific larvae.

Effects of fruit abundance within a tree canopy on the behaviour of wild and cultured Queensland fruit flies, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae)

“…The above is consistent with reports on the response of wild females of other species to fruit abundance ( Roitberg et al 1982 ; Prokopy et al 1987 ; Green et al 1993 ), but no similar experiments have been done with males. The three foregoing papers pertain to females that were selected as being in ‘egg laying mode’ (all had prior contact with fruit), because data on behaviours such as ‘giving up time’ (time between last oviposition and leaving of the tree) were being sought.…”

“…The importance of the ratio of GLV to ripe fruit volatiles in natural or seminatural conditions can be established by observing flies in trees that vary in the amount of ripe fruit that they contain. This has been done with three species of fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh) ( Roitberg et al 1982 ), Ceratitis capitata ( Prokopy et al 1987 ) and Bactrocera dorsalis Hendel ( Green et al 1993 ). However, all of these investigations were done in order to test various ‘optimal foraging’ theories.…”

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

“…a melon field) only for oviposition, while other resources (including protein, roosting sites and mates) are acquired outside the crop patch (Mcquate and Vargas 2007). Other fly species, for example, B. tryoni and B. dorsalis, are thought to acquire most of their resources, including protein, from the fruiting larval-host plant (Drew and Lloyd 1987;Green et al 1993;Balagawi et al 2012). Such contradictory findings reinforce the need for detailed investigations of the individual foraging behaviour of particular fly species.…”

Spatial and temporal foraging patterns of Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae), for protein and implications for management

“…Other fly species, however, are thought to acquire most of their resources, including protein, directly from the fruiting larval‐host plant (Malavasi et al . 1983; Drew & Lloyd 1987; Green et al . 1993), and so in many cases, recommendations are to apply protein directly to the foliage of fruiting hosts (Chinajariyawong et al .…”

“…Wild female Bactrocera tryoni ( B. tryoni , Froggatt), Bactrocera dorsalis ( B. dorsalis ) Hendel and Ceratitis capitata ( C. capitata , Wiedemann) all respond more strongly to, and forage more actively within, trees with high fruit abundance (Prokopy et al . 1989; Green et al . 1993; Dalby‐Ball & Meats 2000a).…”