Skip to main content
ARS Home » Pacific West Area » Hilo, Hawaii » Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center » Tropical Crop and Commodity Protection Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #188879
Title: EFFECTIVENESS OF PROTEIN BAITS ON MELON FLY AND ORIENTAL FRUIT FLY (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE): ATTRACTION, FEEDING, AND FORAGING

Author
item BARRY, JAMES - RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
item Miller, Neil
item PINERO, JAIME - UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS
item TUTTLE, ARTHUR - UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS
item MAU, RON - UNIV OF HAWAII
item Vargas, Roger

Submitted to: Journal of Economic Entomology
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 2/20/2006
Publication Date: 8/1/2006
Citation: Barry, J.D., Miller, N.W., Pinero, J.C., Tuttle, A., Mau, R.F., Vargas, R.I. 2006. Effectiveness of protein baits on melon fly and oriental fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae): attraction, feeding, and foraging. Journal of Economic Entomology. 99: 1161-1167.

Interpretive Summary: Oriental fruit fly and melon fly attack a large range of fruits throughout the world. Their presence presents a serious obstacle in developing a diversified agricultural industry in the Hawaiian Islands. Both species are controlled by the application of protein bait sprays. We compared attraction and feeding responses of both species to four different protein bait formulations. The bait formulations were GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait, GF-120 NF Naturalyte Fruit Fly Bait, Provesta 621 autolyzed yeast extract, and Mazoferm E802. In attraction trials all the baits were equally attractive to both species in choice tests. Melon fly was much more likely to respond to any bait than was oriental fruit fly. In attraction trials oriental fruit fly was found to be more likely to respond to smaller amounts of bait. In feeding trials oriental fruit fly preferred Provesta 621, while melon fly preferred Proveta 621 and Mazoferm E802.

Technical Abstract: Attraction and feeding responses of oriental fruit fly (Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel)) and melon fly (Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett)) were determined for different formulations and types of protein baits. For each species, in separate choice attraction assays significantly more flies arrived at stations with bait than water, but no differences existed among baits of GF-120 Fruit Fly Bait, GF-120 NF Naturalyte Fruit Fly Bait, Provesta 621 autolyzed yeast extract, and Mazoferm E802. In comparison to B. dorsalis, B. cucurbitae had 2.8x more responders and a 4.8x better discrimination between baits and water. In a second attraction assay with only B. dorsalis, volume of bait was significantly and negatively correlated to numbers of flies alighting on the bait. In feeding assays for both species, time spent feeding and duration on a leaf were both significantly affected by bait type. Bactrocera dorsalis fed the longest on Provesta 621, with significantly less feeding on the other baits, and with all baits resulting in more feeding than water. The longest feeding times for B. cucurbitae resulted with Mazoferm E802 and Provesta 621, and all baits except GF-120 NF resulted in significantly longer feeding duration than water. In separate toxicology assays for each species, significantly higher mortality resulted from bait formulations containing spinosad compared with blank baits, but no differences existed between GF-120 and GF-120 NF formulations. The differences are discussed between the two Bactrocera species primarily in regards to bait preference, extent of response, and previous work on laboratory flies.