Page Banner

United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Research Service

Title: Effect of Propylene Gylcol Antifreeze on Captures of Mexican Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Traps Baited with Biolures and Aff Lures

Authors
item Robacker, David
item Czokajlo, Darek - ADVANCED PHEROMONE INC.

Submitted to: Florida Entomologist
Publication Type: Research Notes
Publication Acceptance Date: February 24, 2006
Publication Date: August 25, 2006
Citation: Robacker, D.C., Czokajlo, D. 2006. Effect of propylene gylcol antifreeze on captures of Mexican fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in traps baited with biolures and AFF lures. Florida Entomologist. 89(2):286-287.

Interpretive Summary: This is a research note to be published in FLORIDA ENTOMOLOGIST, the interpretive summary is not required.

Technical Abstract: Multilure traps (Better World Manufacturing, Inc., Miami, FL) baited with BioLure MFF lures (Suterra LLC., Inc., Bend, OR) and containing antifreeze as the drowning agent, were about 2x more attractive than similar traps baited with AFF lures (Advanced Pheromone Technologies, Marylhurst, OR) in orchard tests with irradiated Mexican fruit flies (Anastrepha ludens) (Robacker and Czokajlo 2005). Although antifreeze originally was used in traps only to preserve the captured flies, Thomas et al. (2001) found that attraction of feral Mexican and Caribbean (A. suspensa) fruit flies to McPhail-type traps increased by twofold when antifreeze was used instead of water. Thomas et al. (2001) also reported that unbaited traps containing antifreeze captured flies, but no comparison with unbaited traps containing water was made. Hail et al. (2005) found that 10% propylene glycol was not more attractive than water, but the two drowning agents were not tested in the same trap type, so conclusive data about the attractiveness of antifreeze has not been published. The purpose of this work are: 1) to determine if antifreeze is attractive to Mexican fruit flies; 2) to investigate whether antifreeze enhances attractiveness to the AFF lure; and 3) to compare performance of AFF lures and BioLure MFF lures in traps containing antifreeze vs. water.

Last Modified: 12/21/2014
Footer Content Back to Top of Page