2006Pest Management ScienceRequires access

Feeding and attraction of non‐target flies to spinosad‐based fruit fly bait

Xin‐Geng Wang, Russell H. Messing

Open publisher page 10 citations

Abstract

A spinosad-based fruit fly bait, GF-120, has recently become a primary tool for area-wide suppression or eradication of pest tephritid fruit flies. The present study assessed the attraction and feeding of five non-target fly species to GF-120 in Hawaii. These non-target flies include three beneficial tephritid species [Eutreta xanthochaeta (Aldrich), Tetreuaresta obscuriventris (Loew), Ensina sonchi (L.)] introduced for weed biological control, an endemic Hawaiian tephritid [Trupanea dubautiae (Bryan)] (all Diptera: Tephritidae) and the cosmopolitan Drosophila melanogaster Meigen (Diptera: Drosophilidae). All five non-target fly species were susceptible to GF-120, as was the target pest Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Feeding on, or even brief tasting of, GF-120 killed all fly species within 2 h. When individual flies were provided with a choice of GF-120 or honey solution, there was no difference in the frequency of first food encounter by E. xanthochaeta, D. melanogaster or C. capitata. The other three non-target species approached honey more often than GF-120 in their first food encounter. Feeding times on GF-120 and honey were not significantly different for D. melanogaster and C. capitata, while the other four non-target species fed longer on honey than on GF-120. There was no significant difference in feeding time on honey versus GF-120 between males and females of each species. These results suggest that area-wide treatment using GF-120 for the purpose of eradication of pest fruit flies has potential negative impacts on these and other non-target fly species in Hawaii.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A spinosad-based fruit fly bait, GF-120, has recently become a primary tool for area-wide suppression or eradication of pest tephritid fruit flies. The present study assessed the attraction and feeding of five non-target fly species to GF-120 in Hawaii. These non-target flies include three beneficial tephritid species [Eutreta xanthochaeta (Aldrich), Tetreuaresta obscuriventris (Loew), Ensina sonchi (L.)] introduced for weed biological control, an endemic Hawaiian tephritid [Trupanea dubautiae (Bryan)] (all Diptera: Tephritidae) and the cosmopolitan Drosophila melanogaster Meigen (Diptera: Drosophilidae). All five non-target fly species were susceptible to GF-120, as was the target pest Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Feeding on, or even brief tasting of, GF-120 killed all fly species within 2 h. When individual flies were provided with a choice of GF-120 or honey solution, there was no difference in the frequency of first food encounter by E. xanthochaeta, D. melanogaster or C. capitata. The other three non-target species approached honey more often than GF-120 in their first food encounter. Feeding times on GF-120 and honey were not significantly different for D. melanogaster and C. capitata, while the other four non-target species fed longer on honey than on GF-120. There was no significant difference in feeding time on honey versus GF-120 between males and females of each species. These results suggest that area-wide treatment using GF-120 for the purpose of eradication of pest fruit flies has potential negative impacts on these and other non-target fly species in Hawaii.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A spinosad-based fruit fly bait, GF-120, has recently become a primary tool for area-wide suppression or eradication of pest tephritid fruit flies. The present study assessed the attraction and feeding of five non-target fly species to GF-120 in Hawaii. These non-target flies include three beneficial tephritid species [Eutreta xanthochaeta (Aldrich), Tetreuaresta obscuriventris (Loew), Ensina sonchi (L.)] introduced for weed biological control, an endemic Hawaiian tephritid [Trupanea dubautiae (Bryan)] (all Diptera: Tephritidae) and the cosmopolitan Drosophila melanogaster Meigen (Diptera: Drosophilidae). All five non-target fly species were susceptible to GF-120, as was the target pest Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann). Feeding on, or even brief tasting of, GF-120 killed all fly species within 2 h. When individual flies were provided with a choice of GF-120 or honey solution, there was no difference in the frequency of first food encounter by E. xanthochaeta, D. melanogaster or C. capitata. The other three non-target species approached honey more often than GF-120 in their first food encounter. Feeding times on GF-120 and honey were not significantly different for D. melanogaster and C. capitata, while the other four non-target species fed longer on honey than on GF-120. There was no significant difference in feeding time on honey versus GF-120 between males and females of each species. These results suggest that area-wide treatment using GF-120 for the purpose of eradication of pest fruit flies has potential negative impacts on these and other non-target fly species in Hawaii.

Key concepts: Ceratitis capitata, Tephritidae, Biology, Spinosad, PEST analysis, Capitata, Attraction, Bactrocera dorsalis

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Feeding and attraction of non‐target flies to spinosad‐based fruit fly bait — Research Paper | ScholarLens