scholarly journals Host status of ‘Scifresh’ apples to the invasive fruit fly species Bactrocera dorsalis, Zeugodacus cucurbitae, and Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae)

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 458-470 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Follett ◽  
Jaime Pinero ◽  
Steve Souder ◽  
Lisa Jamieson ◽  
Barbara Waddell ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Peter A Follett ◽  
Fay E M Haynes ◽  
Bernard C Dominiak

Abstract Tephritid fruit flies are major economic pests for fruit production and are an impediment to international trade. Different host fruits are known to vary in their suitability for fruit flies to complete their life cycle. Currently, international regulatory standards that define the likely legal host status for tephritid fruit flies categorize fruits as a natural host, a conditional host, or a nonhost. For those fruits that are natural or conditional hosts, infestation rate can vary as a spectrum ranging from highly attractive fruits supporting large numbers of fruit flies to very poor hosts supporting low numbers. Here, we propose a Host Suitability Index (HSI), which divides the host status of natural and conditional hosts into five categories based on the log infestation rate (number of flies per kilogram of fruit) ranging from very poor (<0.1), poor (0.1–1.0), moderately good (1.0–10.0), good (10–100), and very good (>100). Infestation rates may be determined by field sampling or cage infestation studies. We illustrate the concept of this index using 21 papers that examine the host status of fruits in five species of polyphagous fruit flies in the Pacific region: Bactrocera tryoni Froggatt, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), Bactrocera latifrons (Hendel), Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett), and Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae). This general-purpose index may be useful in developing systems approaches that rely on poor host status, for determining surveillance and detection protocols for potential incursions, and to guide the appropriate regulatory response during fruit fly outbreaks.


2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (3) ◽  
pp. 1158-1175
Author(s):  
Orlando S Dolores ◽  
Javier M Layme ◽  
Carlos C Huaynate

Abstract The host status of sweet granadilla (Passifflora ligularis Juss.) to Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) and Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) in Peru was determined. Experiments were conducted in Pasco (Peru) in four different orchards, over 2 yr (2016 and 2017), two orchards per year. Choice (granadilla plus natural host) and no-choice foraging behavior trials were conducted using sleeves under field conditions, and forced infestation was examined in laboratory cages, with five females per fruit. The development time of C. capitata was determined, and the oviposition behavior of C. capitata and A. fraterculus was examined. Three fruit maturity stages of intact (n = 1,320) and punctured (n = 1,320) granadilla fruits were examined. Adult C. capitata (n = 4,418) and A. fraterculus (n = 2,484) were trapped in the orchards, and commercial granadilla fruits (n = 1,940) sampled and dissected. Fruit fly infestation was not found in any intact granadilla fruits. Larvae and pupae were found inside punctured granadilla only in fruits broken after 20 d, and adults only emerged when those pupae were removed from the fruit. Ceratitis capitata development time was longer in punctured granadilla than that in host fruit. In the oviposition test, A. fraterculus and C. capitata did not lay eggs in intact granadilla, and C. capitata laid eggs in punctured fruits but larvae were not found. Because of the resistance mechanisms of the pericarp, commercial fruits of Passiflora ligularis are not a natural host of C. capitata and A. fraterculus in Peru.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (135) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger I. Vargas ◽  
Jaime C. Piñero ◽  
Ronald F. L. Mau ◽  
Eric B. Jang ◽  
Lester M. Klungness ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
CM Ward ◽  
RA Aumann ◽  
MA Whitehead ◽  
K Nikolouli ◽  
G Leveque ◽  
...  

AbstractMass releases of sterilized male insects, in the frame of sterile insect technique programs, have helped suppress insect pest populations since the 1950s. In the major horticultural pests Bactrocera dorsalis, Ceratitis capitata, and Zeugodacus cucurbitae, a key phenotype white pupae (wp) has been used for decades to selectively remove females before releases, yet the gene responsible remained unknown. Here we use classical and modern genetic approaches to identify and functionally characterize causal wp− mutations in these distantly related fruit fly species. We find that the wp phenotype is produced by parallel mutations in a single, conserved gene. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of the wp gene leads to the rapid generation of novel white pupae strains in C. capitata and B. tryoni. The conserved phenotype and independent nature of the wp− mutations suggest that this technique can provide a generic approach to produce sexing strains in other major medical and agricultural insect pests.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher M. Ward ◽  
Roswitha A. Aumann ◽  
Mark A. Whitehead ◽  
Katerina Nikolouli ◽  
Gary Leveque ◽  
...  

AbstractMass releases of sterilized male insects, in the frame of sterile insect technique programs, have helped suppress insect pest populations since the 1950s. In the major horticultural pests Bactrocera dorsalis, Ceratitis capitata, and Zeugodacus cucurbitae, a key phenotype white pupae (wp) has been used for decades to selectively remove females before releases, yet the gene responsible remained unknown. Here, we use classical and modern genetic approaches to identify and functionally characterize causal wp− mutations in these distantly related fruit fly species. We find that the wp phenotype is produced by parallel mutations in a single, conserved gene. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of the wp gene leads to the rapid generation of white pupae strains in C. capitata and B. tryoni. The conserved phenotype and independent nature of wp− mutations suggest this technique can provide a generic approach to produce sexing strains in other major medical and agricultural insect pests.


2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-549
Author(s):  
Ying-gang DU ◽  
Hai-bo XIA ◽  
Jia-hua CHEN ◽  
Qing-e JI

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document