Host plant range of a fruit fly community (Diptera: Tephritidae): does fruit composition influence larval performance?

Abstract

BackgroundPhytophagous insects differ in their degree of specialisation on host plants, and range from strictly monophagous species that can develop on only one host plant to extremely polyphagous species that can develop on hundreds of plant species in many families. Nutritional compounds in host fruits affect several larval traits that may be related to adult fitness. In this study, we determined the relationship between fruit nutrient composition and the degree of host specialisation of seven of the eight tephritid species present in La Réunion; these species are known to have very different host ranges in natura. In the laboratory, larval survival, larval developmental time, and pupal weight were assessed on 22 fruit species occurring in La Réunion. In addition, data on fruit nutritional composition were obtained from existing databases.ResultsFor each tephritid, the three larval traits were significantly affected by fruit species and the effects of fruits on larval traits differed among tephritids. As expected, the polyphagous species Bactrocera zonata, Ceratitis catoirii, C. rosa, and C. capitata were able to survive on a larger range of fruits than the oligophagous species Zeugodacus cucurbitae, Dacus demmerezi, and Neoceratitis cyanescens. Pupal weight was positively correlated with larval survival and was negatively correlated with developmental time for polyphagous species. Canonical correspondence analysis of the relationship between fruit nutrient composition and tephritid survival showed that polyphagous species survived better than oligophagous ones in fruits containing higher concentrations of carbohydrate, fibre, and lipid.ConclusionNutrient composition of host fruit at least partly explains the suitability of host fruits for larvae. Completed with female preferences experiments these results will increase our understanding of factors affecting tephritid host range.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12898-016-0094-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Changes in phytophagous insect host ranges following the invasion of their community: Long‐term data for fruit flies

“…This species is known to be highly polyphagous and competitive (Clarke et al, 2005) and would therefore be expected to compete with the Tephritidae species already present on La Réunion. To better predict potential niche displacement in response to new invasive competitor a detailed studies comparing fundamental host range provided by laboratory experiments (Hafsi et al, 2016) with realized host range in the field will be necessary. Conversely, La Réunion is frequently invaded by new plant species that could become potential host plants for Tephritidae species, and changes in agricultural practices may modify host plant availability on the island.…”

Species of Anastrepha (Diptera: Tephritidae), Their Host Plants, and Parasitoids in Small Fruit Production Areas in the State of Amapá, Brazil

“…In addition, the understanding of these relationships provides information on the structure of the fruit fly community in the Brazilian Amazon, because the host plant may have a direct effect on the distribution and abundance of Anastrepha species. It is worth not-ing that tephritids show different degrees of specialization on species of plants native to the American continent, ranging from monophagy to polyphagy (Duyck et al 2004;Aluja & Mangan 2008;Malavasi 2009;Hafsi et al 2016).…”

Relationship between fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestation and the physicochemical changes in fresh fruits

“…The trophic fly/host fruit relationship may also be involved in the different responses of each fruit species because the nutritional quality of fruit for larval development is a factor that determines preference for hosts in polyphagous insects (Thompson, 1988;Danks, 2007), such as C. capitata (Liquido et al, 1990). The nutritional quality of fruit for feeding C. capitata larvae (Costa et al, 2011;Hafsi et al, 2016) may explain the susceptibility to physicochemical changes in guava, mango, star fruit and tangerine (Raga et al, 2011) and non-susceptibility of apple, which is not considered an appropriate feeding substrate for C. capitata larvae (Joachim-Bravo et al, 2001;Follett et al, 2019).…”

“…The injuries caused by infestation of fruit flies may impair fruit quality for consumption and commercial sale. However, due to the physicochemical differences of the fruit species (Gonçalves et al, 2012;Hafsi et al, 2016;Plotto et al, 2017) each host species may react differently to the injuries caused by oviposition and larval feeding. In this study, we associated infestation of fruit flies with physicochemical changes in five fruit species and evaluated these changes during the development of immature stages of insects in the laboratory.…”