Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:32:31.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Using two-sex life tables to determine fitness parameters of four Bactrocera species (Diptera: Tephritidae) reared on a semi-artificial diet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 September 2017

W. Jaleel
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, South China Agriculture University, Guangzhou 510642, Guangzhou, China
J. Yin
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, South China Agriculture University, Guangzhou 510642, Guangzhou, China
D. Wang
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, South China Agriculture University, Guangzhou 510642, Guangzhou, China
Y. He*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, South China Agriculture University, Guangzhou 510642, Guangzhou, China
L. Lu
Affiliation:
Plant Protection Research Institute, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, Guangzhou, China
H. Shi
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, College of Agriculture, South China Agriculture University, Guangzhou 510642, Guangzhou, China
*
*Author for correspondence Tel.: +0086-020-85283985 E-mail: yrhe@scau.edu.cn

Abstract

Fruit flies in the genus Bactrocera are global, economically important pests of agricultural food crops. However, basic life history information about these pests, which is vital for designing more effective control methods, is currently lacking. Artificial diets can be used as a suitable replacement for natural host plants for rearing fruit flies under laboratory conditions, and this study reports on the two-sex life-table parameters of four Bactrocera species (Bactrocera correcta, Bactrocera dorsalis, Bactrocera cucurbitae, and Bactrocera tau) reared on a semi-artificial diet comprising corn flour, banana, sodium benzoate, yeast, sucrose, winding paper, hydrochloric acid and water. The results indicated that the larval development period of B. correcta (6.81 ± 0.65 days) was significantly longer than those of the other species. The fecundity of B. dorsalis (593.60 eggs female−1) was highest among the four species. There were no differences in intrinsic rate of increase (r) and finite rate of increase (λ) among the four species. The gross reproductive rate (GRR) and net reproductive rate (R0) of B. dorsalis were higher than those of the other species, and the mean generation time (T) of B. cucurbitae (42.08 ± 1.21 h) was longer than that of the other species. We conclude that the semi-artificial diet was most suitable for rearing B. dorsalis, due to its shorter development time and higher fecundity. These results will be useful for future studies of fruit fly management.

Type
Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allwood, A., Chinajariyawong, A., Kritsaneepaiboon, S., Drew, R., Hamacek, E., Hancock, D., Hengsawad, C., Jipanin, J., Jirasurat, M. & Krong, C.K. (1999) Host plant records for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southeast Asia. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 47, 192.Google Scholar
Awmack, C.S. & Leather, S.R. (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 817844.Google Scholar
Birch, L.C. (1948) The intrinsic rate of natural increase of an insect population. Journal of Animal Ecology 17, 1526.Google Scholar
Castañé, C. & Zapata, R. (2005) Rearing the predatory bug Macrolophus caliginosus on a meat-based diet. Biological Control 34, 6672.Google Scholar
Chang, C.L., Caceres, C. & Jang, E.B. (2004) A novel liquid larval diet and its rearing system for melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 97, 524528.Google Scholar
Changmu, J. & Hongmu, A. (2006) Life tables of the melon fly laboratory population reared on various host fruits. Journal of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University 35, 2428.Google Scholar
Chen, Q., Li, N., Wang, X., Ma, L., Huang, J.B. & Huang, G.H. (2017) Age-stage, two-sex life table of Parapoynx crisonalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) at different temperatures. PLoS ONE 12, e0173380.Google Scholar
Chi, H. & Su, H.Y. (2006) Age-stage, two-sex life tables of Aphidius gifuensis (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) and its host Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Homoptera: Aphididae) with mathematical proof of the relationship between female fecundity and the net reproductive rate. Environmental Entomology 35, 1021.Google Scholar
Chi, H. & Team C. (2017) TWOSEX-MSChart: A Computer Program for the Age-Stage, Two-sex Life Table Analysis. National Chung Hsing University, Taichung, Taiwan.Google Scholar
Clarke, A.R., Armstrong, K.F., Carmichael, A.E., Milne, J.R., Raghu, S., Roderick, G.K. & Yeates, D.K. (2005) Invasive phytophagous pests arising through a recent tropical evolutionary radiation: the Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies. Annual Review of Entomology 50, 293319.Google Scholar
Dhillon, M., Singh, R., Naresh, J. & Sharma, H. (2005) The melon fruit fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae: a review of its biology and management. Journal of Insect Science 5, 40.Google Scholar
Dominiak, B.C., Sundaralingam, S., Jiang, L., Jessup, A.J. & Barchia, I.M. (2010) Impact of marker dye on adult eclosion and flight ability of mass produced Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Australian Journal of Entomology 49, 166169.Google Scholar
Drew, R.A.I. (2004) Biogeography and speciation in the Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae). Bishop Museum Bulletin in Entomology 12, 165178.Google Scholar
Drew, R. & Raghu, S. (2002) The fruit fly fauna (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) of the rainforest habitat of the Western Ghats, India. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 50, 327352.Google Scholar
Ekesi, S., Nderitu, P.W. & Chang, C.L. (2007) Adaptation to and small-scale rearing of invasive fruit fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae) on artificial diet. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 100, 562567.Google Scholar
Ekesi, S., De Meyer, M., Mohamed, S.A., Virgilio, M. & Borgemeister, C. (2016) Taxonomy, ecology, and management of native and exotic fruit fly species in Africa. Annual Review of Entomology 61, 219238.Google Scholar
Goodman, D. (1982) Optimal life histories, optimal notation, and the value of reproductive value. The American Naturalist 119, 803823.Google Scholar
Gupta, J. & Verma, A. (1978) Screening of different cucurbit crops for the attack of the melon fruit fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coq.(Diptera: Tephritidae). Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences 7, 7882.Google Scholar
Hasyim, A., Muryati, M. & De Kogel, W. (2016) Population fluctuation of adult males of the fruit fly, Bactrocera tau Walker (Diptera: Tephritidae) in passion fruit orchards in relation to abiotic factors and sanitation. Indonesian Journal of Agricultural Science 9, 2933.Google Scholar
Huang, Y.B. & Chi, H. (2012) Age-stage, two-sex life tables of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Diptera: Tephritidae) with a discussion on the problem of applying female age-specific life tables to insect populations. Insect Science 19, 263273.Google Scholar
Huang, Y.B. & Chi, H. (2013) Life tables of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae): with an invalidation of the jackknife technique. Journal of Applied Entomology 137, 327339.Google Scholar
Jiang, F., Li, Z.H., Deng, Y.L., Wu, J.J., Liu, R.S. & Buahom, N. (2013) Rapid diagnosis of the economically important fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on a species-specific barcoding cytochrome oxidase I marker. Bulletin of Entomological Research 103, 363371.Google Scholar
Jiang, H.B., Gui, S.H., Xu, L., Pei, Y.X., Smagghe, G. & Wang, J.J. (2017) The short neuropeptide F modulates olfactory sensitivity of Bactrocera dorsalis upon starvation. Journal of Insect Physiology 99, 7885.Google Scholar
Katsoyannos, B., Boller, E. & Remund, U. (1977) Beitrag zur entwicklung von methoden fur die massenzucht der kirschenfliege, Rhagoletis cerasi L., auf kunstlichen substraten. Mitteilungen Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft 50, 2533.Google Scholar
Kogan, M., & Bajwa, W.I. (1999) Integrated pest management: a global reality? Anais da Sociedade Entomológica do Brasil 28, 0125.Google Scholar
Kushwaha, K., Pareek, B. & Noor, A. (1973) Fruit fly damage in cucurbits at Udaipur. Udaipur University Research Journal 11, 2223.Google Scholar
Lall, B. & Sinha, S. (1959) On the biology of the melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae (Coq.) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Science & Culture 25, 159161.Google Scholar
Leslie, P.H. (1945) On the use of matrices in certain population mathematics. Biometrika 33, 183212.Google Scholar
Lewis, E.G. (1977) On the generation and growth of a population. pp. 221225 in Mathematical Demography. Biomathematics, vol 6. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Liu, J.L., Chen, X.Y. & Zeng, X.N. (2015) Classical olfactory conditioning in the oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis. PLoS ONE 10, e0122155.Google Scholar
Liu, X., Jin, Y. & Ye, H. (2013) Recent spread and climatic ecological niche of the invasive guava fruit fly, Bactrocera correcta, in mainland China. Journal of Pest Science 86, 449458.Google Scholar
Mir, S., Dar, S., Mir, G. & Ahmad, S. (2014) Biology of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae) on cucumber. Florida Entomologist 97, 753758.Google Scholar
Mittler, T. & Tsitsipis, J. (1973) Economical rearing of larvae of the olive fruit fly, Dacus oleae, on a liquid diet offered on cotton towelling. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 16, 292293.Google Scholar
Pozuelo, M., Chang, Y., & Yang, J. (2015) Effect of diamondoids on the microstructure and mechanical behavior of nanostructured Mg-matrix nanocomposites. Materials Science and Engineering: A 633, 200208.Google Scholar
Rabab, R.A., Al-Eryan, M., El-Minshawy, A. & Gadelhak, G. (2016) Laboratory rearing of the peach fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on semi-artificial diet based on soybean protein. Alexandria Journal of Agricultural Science 61, 175183.Google Scholar
Rajaganapathi, J. & Kathiresan, K. (2002) A simple and cost-effective mass rearing technique for the tephritid fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel). Current Science 82, 266268.Google Scholar
Razmjou, J. & Golizadeh, A. (2010) Performance of corn leaf aphid, Rhopalosiphum maidis (Fitch) (Homoptera: Aphididae) on selected maize hybrids under laboratory conditions. Applied Entomology and Zoology 45, 267274.Google Scholar
SAS Institute (2009) SAS/STAT user's guide, version 9.2. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sayyed, A.H., Saeed, S. & Crickmore, N. (2008) Genetic, biochemical, and physiological characterization of spinosad resistance in Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 101, 16581666.Google Scholar
Shen, K., Hu, J., Wu, B., An, K., Zhang, J., Liu, J. & Zhang, R. (2014) Competitive interactions between immature stages of Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) and Bactrocera tau (walker) (Diptera: Tephritidae) under laboratory conditions. Neotropical Entomology 43, 335343.Google Scholar
Shinwari, I., Khan, S., Khan, M.A., Ahmad, S., Shah, S.F., Mashwani, M.A. & Khan, M.A. (2015) Evaluation of artificial larval diets for rearing of fruit fly Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) under laboratory condition. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 3, 189193.Google Scholar
Singh, P. (1977) Artificial Diets for Insects, Mites and Spiders. IFI/Plenum Publishing Company, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Singh, S.K., Kumar, D. & Ramamurthy, V.V. (2010) Biology of Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) tau (walker) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Entomological Research 40, 259263.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. & Henderson, P. (2000) Ecological Methods. Oxford, Blackwell Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Tan, K.H., Tokushima, I., Ono, H. & Nishida, R. (2011) Comparison of phenylpropanoid volatiles in male rectal pheromone gland after methyl eugenol consumption, and molecular phylogenetic relationship of four global pest fruit fly species: Bactrocera invadens, B. dorsalis, B. correcta and B. zonata. Chemoecology 21, 2533.Google Scholar
Vargas, R.I. & Carey, J.R. (1989) Comparison of demographic parameters for wild and laboratory-adapted Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 82, 5559.Google Scholar
Vargas, R.I., Walsh, W.A., Kanehisa, D., Jang, E.B. & Armstrong, J.W. (1997) Demography of four Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) reared at five constant temperatures. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 90, 162168.Google Scholar
Vargas, R.I., Walsh, W.A., Kanehisa, D., Stark, J.D. & Nishida, T. (2000) Comparative demography of three Hawaiian fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) at alternating temperatures. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 93, 7581.Google Scholar
Varley, G. & Gradwell, G. (1970) Recent advances in insect population dynamics. Annual Review of Entomology 15, 124.Google Scholar
Vayssières, J.F., Carel, Y., Coubes, M. & Duyck, P.F. (2008) Development of immature stages and comparative demography of two cucurbit-attacking fruit flies in Reunion Island: Bactrocera cucurbitae and Dacus ciliatus (Diptera Tephritidae). Environmental Entomology 37, 307314.Google Scholar
Waseem, M., Naganagoud, A., Sagar, D. & Kareem, M.A. (2012) Biology of melon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) on cucumber. BIOINFOLET-A Quarterly Journal of Life Sciences 9, 232239.Google Scholar
White, I.M. & Elson-Harris, M.M. (1992) Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics. Wallingford, CAB International.Google Scholar
Yang, P., Carey, J. & Dowell, R. (1994) Host-specific demographic studies of wild Bactrocera tau (walker) (Diptera: Tephritidae). The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 70, 253258.Google Scholar