Spatio‐temporal distribution of sexual calling behaviour in domesticated, sterile and wild Queensland fruit fly males under field cage conditions

Abstract

BACKGROUND The sterile insect technique (SIT) is used in Australia to contain and eradicate outbreaks of Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in fruit‐fly‐free regions, and to manage populations in some endemic regions. To assess the likely impact of SIT on wild B. tryoni populations it is important to assess the colocation and synchrony of male calling between sterile and wild flies. We observed the location and timing of calling behaviours of marked mass‐reared (fertile and sterile) and wild B. tryoni males in walk‐in field cages. RESULTS We found that wild males called further from the canopy centre than mass‐reared (fertile or sterile) males. Mass‐reared (fertile or sterile) males called earlier in the evening than wild males and, consequently, mass‐reared males called when temperature and light intensity were higher than when wild males called. CONCLUSION Male calling is a prerequisite to mating among dacine fruit flies. Therefore, our observations of spatio‐temporal divergence in male calling behaviour may lead to assortative mating between mass‐reared and wild B. tryoni in SIT applications. The importance of these spatio‐temporal differences warrants further inquiry, with particular focus on how environmental conditions modify calling behaviour and avenues to ameliorate differences between sterile and wild flies. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry

Sexual behaviour of Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (Diptera: Tephritidae): Do laboratory domestication conditions influence male courtship behaviour?

“…Our data corroborate reports for a laboratory-reared lineage of A. obliqua from Mexico that emitted larger quantities of pheromone in the morning (07:00-09:00), then decreasing during the day, with a new peak from 17:00 to 19:00 (L opez-Guillén et al, 2008). The similarities between the calling patterns of wild and laboratory-reared males observed in our study contradict the results from studies comparing wild and laboratory lineages of other fruit fly species (Inskeep et al, 2021;McInnis et al, 1996;Meza-Hernández & Díaz-Fleischer, 2006;Papadopoulos et al, 1998).…”

“…There are reports in the literature of temporal asynchronies of calling behaviour between wild and laboratory‐reared male fruit flies. In Bactrocera tryoni , mass‐reared males displayed calling behaviour earlier in the evening when temperature and light intensity were higher compared with wild males (Inskeep et al, 2021). Similar asynchronous calling behaviour has been reported for laboratory‐reared and wild males in C. capitata and A. ludens , with the laboratory‐adapted males calling earlier than wild males (McInnis et al, 1996; Meza‐Hernández & Díaz‐Fleischer, 2006; Papadopoulos et al, 1998).…”

“…Reports have also cited temporal asynchrony of calling between wild males and those reared under laboratory conditions (Cayol, 1999;Inskeep et al, 2021;McInnis et al, 1996;Papadopoulos et al, 1998;Rempoulakis et al, 2015;Weldon, 2005). Changes in pheromone compositions (Heath et al, 1994;Vaníčková et al, 2012) and in the quantities of the volatile substances emitted (Pérez et al, 2018;Vaníčková et al, 2012) are other aspects of sexual behaviour that could be altered by domestication.…”

“…A number of studies have reported that fruit fly domestication can provoke changes in the sexual behaviour of the males, such as copulation attempts without calling (Briceño & Eberhard, 2002; Lux et al, 2002) or the truncation of that calling (Briceño & Eberhard, 1998, 2002), changes in the temporal structures of the sounds produced by the males during courtship (Mankin et al, 2008) and abbreviations of behavioural routines (Briceño & Eberhard, 2002). Reports have also cited temporal asynchrony of calling between wild males and those reared under laboratory conditions (Cayol, 1999; Inskeep et al, 2021; McInnis et al, 1996; Papadopoulos et al, 1998; Rempoulakis et al, 2015; Weldon, 2005). Changes in pheromone compositions (Heath et al, 1994; Vaníčková et al, 2012) and in the quantities of the volatile substances emitted (Pérez et al, 2018; Vaníčková et al, 2012) are other aspects of sexual behaviour that could be altered by domestication.…”