Efficacy of trapping systems for monitoring of Afrotropical fruit flies

Abstract

The efficacy of different attractant trap combinations for monitoring of Afrotropical fruit flies was evaluated in commercial fruit production areas and natural areas in the northern parts of South Africa. Five food‐based attractants: three‐component Biolure, a combination of ammonium acetate and trimethylamine, a combination of ammonium acetate and putrescine, torula yeast and Questlure, were evaluated in McPhail‐type traps. Two male lures targeting Ceratitis species: EGO Pherolure and trimedlure, were evaluated in Sensus bucket traps. Three male lures targeting Dacine fruit flies: methyl eugenol, cue lure and zingerone, were evaluated in Moroccan bucket traps. The three‐component Biolure was among the most effective food‐based attractant for females of Ceratitis capitata, C. rosa (R1 and R2), C. cosyra and Bactrocera dorsalis. EGO Pherolure attracted a wider range of Ceratitis species than trimedlure but was equally as effective as trimedlure for males of C. capitata and C. rosa (R1 and R2). Dacine flies were specific in their responses to male lures. Bactrocera dorsalis males responded mainly to methyl eugenol. Males of Dacus species responded to either cue lure or zingerone. Zingerone attracted two cucurbit‐infesting Dacus species: D. frontalis and D. durbanensis. For B. dorsalis, C. capitata and C. cosyra in commercial fruit production areas, patterns of female catches in traps containing food‐based attractants were different to patterns of male catches in male lure‐based traps. Implications of these trapping results are discussed.

Host range and species diversity of Tephritidae of three plant formations in Western Burkina Faso

“…It can be seen that fruit fly species richness was influenced by the host plant diversity in plant formations. Similar results were obtained by Manrakhan et al (2017) who pointed out that the diversity of tephritid species was higher in natural environments than in commercial orchards in South Africa. According to Geurts et al (2012), the diversity of fruit fly species in a biotope depended on the diversity of the host fruit.…”

“…According to Geurts et al (2012), the diversity of fruit fly species in a biotope depended on the diversity of the host fruits. Manrakhan et al (2017) stated that plant formations around mango orchards play a major role in fruit fly population dynamics. By taking these three types of plant formations into account, this study provides a better understanding of the role of each plant formation in the emergence and maintenance of fruit fly pests through its floristic composition.…”

Field Evaluation of Different Chemical Compounds in Attracting the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata Wied: (Diptera, Tephritidae) Using Makkar and El-Abbassi Plastic Trap

“…In this study, it was found that, all four treatments showed marked selectivity for females. This results coincides with the findings of (Manrakhan et al, 2017), who found that significantly more C. capitata females were trapped in three-component Biolure-baited Chempac Bucket trap (AA + TMA + PT) than in other lures (a combination of AA + TMA, a combination of AA + PT, torula yeast and Questlure in McPhail-type traps. In the same trend Ben Jemâa et al, (2010) found that the percentage of captured C. capitata females was significantly higher than that of males in mandarin and washengton navel orange orchards.…”

Analysis of the Mediterranean fruit fly [Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann)] spatio-temporal distribution in relation to sex and female mating status for precision IPM

“…Traps with male attractants such as trimedlure generally gave a better picture of medfly spatio-temporal dynamics than Biolure, but do not catch mated females, that are responsible for larval infestations. As several food-based attractants have been investigated in recent years [ 61 – 63 ], we believe an important challenge will be to specifically assess the monitoring of mated females. In fact, treating females as a whole can produce unreliable results, as unmated females and mated females have very different spatial distribution patterns in some periods.…”