2021 Volume 8 Issue 1

Evaluation of Solid Lure Plugs and Insecticide Dispensers on Capturing Dacine Fruit Flies and Non-target Insects


Mahfuza Khan, Abdul Bari, Mahmudul Hossain
Abstract

The present study investigated the efficacy of solid male lures viz., cuelure (C-L), methyl eugenol (ME) and tri-med lure (TML) formulated with insecticide for the capture of Tephritid fruit flies in three different green areas of Bangladesh. We also evaluated non-target attraction effects to traps baited with these male lures. Traps were placed at nine locations in each of three experimental fields of Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh during May-September, 2015. The experimental areas were i. Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) colony, ii. AERE office campus, and iii. Jahangirnagar University (JU) campus, comprising agricultural fields, backyard gardens and mixed plantation. The flies were collected at weekly interval over 18 weeks. Total capture of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coq.), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), Zeugodacus tau (Walker), and Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) were determined.  The number of non-target insects attracted to different lure baited traps was also recorded. The prevalence of Dacine fruit flies was significantly higher at the JU campus comprising 98.41% B. dorsalis (538.05±62.28 fly/trap/week (FTW)) captured by ME. The comparatively higher number of Z. cucurbitae, and Z. tau trapped by C-L from AERE office campus, and JU campus, respectively. No Bactrocera spp. was attracted to the TML. Saprophagous non-targets mostly Diptera, Drosophilla, Milichiidae, Hymenoptea (black ants) were abundant in traps baited with C-L and ME. It was revealed that the response to lures was species-specific. Tested solid lures and DDVP strips did not exert any detrimental effects on non-target beneficial insects and were found effective for mass-trapping of Dacine fruit flies.


How to cite this article
Vancouver
Khan M, Bari A, Hossain M. Evaluation of Solid Lure Plugs and Insecticide Dispensers on Capturing Dacine Fruit Flies and Non-target Insects. Entomol. Appl. Sci. Lett.. 2021;8(1):35-44. https://doi.org/10.51847/1cXMPDpzjg
APA
Khan, M., Bari, A., & Hossain, M. (2021). Evaluation of Solid Lure Plugs and Insecticide Dispensers on Capturing Dacine Fruit Flies and Non-target Insects. Entomology and Applied Science Letters, 8(1),35-44. https://doi.org/10.51847/1cXMPDpzjg

Evaluation of Solid Lure Plugs and Insecticide Dispensers on Capturing Dacine Fruit Flies and Non-target Insects

Mahfuza Khan1, Md. Abdul Bari2*, Mahmudul Hossain3

 

1 Institute of Food and Radiation Biology (IFRB), Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.

2*Insect Biotechnology Division, Institute of Food and Radiation Biology, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.

3Training Institute, Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.


ABSTRACT

The present study investigated the efficacy of solid male lures viz., cuelure (C-L), methyl eugenol (ME) and tri-med lure (TML) formulated with insecticide for the capture of Tephritid fruit flies in three different green areas of Bangladesh. We also evaluated non-target attraction effects to traps baited with these male lures. Traps were placed at nine locations in each of three experimental fields of Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh during May-September, 2015. The experimental areas were i. Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) colony, ii. AERE office campus, and iii. Jahangirnagar University (JU) campus, comprising agricultural fields, backyard gardens and mixed plantation. The flies were collected at weekly interval over 18 weeks. Total capture of Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coq.), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel), Zeugodacus tau (Walker), and Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) were determined.  The number of non-target insects attracted to different lure baited traps was also recorded. The prevalence of Dacine fruit flies was significantly higher at the JU campus comprising 98.41% B. dorsalis (538.05±62.28 fly/trap/week (FTW)) captured by ME. The comparatively higher number of Z. cucurbitae, and Z. tau trapped by C-L from AERE office campus, and JU campus, respectively. No Bactrocera spp. was attracted to the TML. Saprophagous non-targets mostly Diptera, Drosophilla, Milichiidae, Hymenoptea (black ants) were abundant in traps baited with C-L and ME. It was revealed that the response to lures was species-specific. Tested solid lures and DDVP strips did not exert any detrimental effects on non-target beneficial insects and were found effective for mass-trapping of Dacine fruit flies.

Keywords: Solid lures, Insecticide strips, Dacine, Tephritid fruit fly, Capture, Non-target insects.


INTRODUCTION

 

The Dacini fruit flies within Tephritidae (Diptera: Tephritidae) are mainly florivorous or frugivorous and approximately 10 percent of the 932 recently recognized species are pests of various vegetables and fruits [1, 2]. The genus includes various highly invasive and/or serious polyphagous pest species viz., the melon fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett), the pumpkin fruit fly, Zeugodacus tau (Walker), Bactrocera dorsalis sensustricto (Hendel), the oriental fruit fly, the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and many others. Ceratitis is also a genus of Tephritidae having around 65 species found in tropical and South Africa with many pest species. The Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) which has spread to almost all warm temperate and tropical areas worldwide and captured using food baited traps in Hawaii and also traps baited with different amount of trimedlure (TML) [3, 4]. From an economic perspective, different fruit fly species of these genera: i. inflict direct and extensive damage to fleshy vegetables and fruits, ii. cause quarantine restrictions on infested areas, iii. need commercial fruits to undergo postharvest and protective treatment before export, and iv. provide a breeding reservoir for their introduction into other parts of the world [5]. Recently, the alarming invasion of these insects has been increased due to the increased human travel and global trade worldwide. These insects have been suppressed and even eradicated through the area-wide utilization of male lures. In addition to detection programs, the male lures also have been used to control or suppress through the male annihilation technique (MAT) [6-9]. The most commonly used Tephritids male lures for detection are TML (tert-butyl 4- and 5-chloro-cis- and trans-2-methylcyclohexane-1-carboxylate), raspberry ketone (RK) (4-(p-hydroxyphenyl)-2-butanone), Cue-lure (C-L) (4-(p-acetoxyphenyl)-2-butanone), and Methyl eugenol (ME) (4-allyl-1, 2-dimethoxybenzene-carboxylate). These are powerful male-specific lures. Males of above mentioned Bactrocera fruit flies are attracted to either C-L/RK or ME. TML is known to attract numerous male Ceratitis species (e.g., C. capitata and C. rosa Karsch) and is a mixture of eight isomers. ME is a widely distributed natural plant product and is found in >200 plant species in 32 families mainly found in the tropics. C-L has not been isolated as a natural product but it is rapidly hydrolyzed and forms RK, a very effective lure for Z. cucurbitae. An investigation recently reported that the CL hydrolysis is negligible and it remains intact in the atmosphere in the time-frame of the compound acting like a fruit fly lure [10]. Moreover, C-L was recently discovered in 2 daciniphilous flowers- Bulbophyllum hortorum [11, 12] and Passsiflora maliformis L. [13]. However, RK was isolated originally from Dendrobium superbum Rchb. F.  A novel fluorinated ana-log of raspberry ketone, raspberry ketone trifluoroacetate (RKTA) found to attract significantly more Q-flies, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) than cuelure or melolure [14, 15]. However, of the 54 Dacini species (comprised of the 2 main genera Dacus F. and Bactrocera Macquart) that are agricultural pests, 16 respond to ME and 26 to C-L/RK.

In fruit fly suppression and detection programs, various types of traps were used baited with these male lures (plus a toxicant) usually in liquid form. Some of the common traps used for detection with C-L and ME are bucket, Champ, Jackson, and Steiner traps [16]. A surveillance reported on non-target insects captured in tephritid fruit fly traps in South Korea and also a novel dispensing system for male lures used to detect invasive fruit flies [17, 18]. MAT carriers including molded paper fiber, Min-U-Gel, cotton wicks, and fiberboard blocks are commonly used in different countries. For instance, fiberboard blocks impregnated with ME and different organophosphate insecticides including naled and malathion were utilized to eliminate B. dorsalis from Okinawa, and papaya fruit fly, Bactrocera papaya Drew and Hancock from Australia. Usually, the liquid lures have been a mixture of ME or C-L and liquid insecticides viz., nailed or malathion, placed on a cotton wick. These involve significant handling to measure and apply the liquids, and also potential health risks due to pesticide exposure [6, 19-21]. However, eventually, there is progressing toward replacement of liquid C-L and ME and insecticides with solid formulations (such as C-L plugs or Scentry ME cones, North Bend, WA, ME wafers, Farma Tech (FT), Boseman, MT) [3, 22, 23] and with solid lure/insecticide (such as DDVP) combinations [9], which proved convenience and safe for workers. Again, it was revealed that traps lacking an insecticide and containing a male lure generally captured fewer Z. cucurbitae or B. dorsalis males compared to those containing a naled plus lure or a separate DDVP strip [19]. It was also demonstrated that the presentation of a male lure plus spinosad, a low-risk pesticide, did not increase the effectiveness of the trap more than what was observed for traps with no insecticide. There is not any suitable alternative to organophosphate insecticides, and fruit fly surveillance programs continue to use them to retain insects in the traps [4, 17, 24, 25]. ‘Given this constraint, it was recommended that pre-packaged DDVP strips, which are safer and easier to handle than lure-naled solutions, can be as effective as these solutions in detecting infestations or monitoring Tephritids populations. The HAWPM (Hawaii Fruit Fly Area-Wide Pest Management Program) (2000-2009) program effectively-researched, developed, and registered novel fruit fly monitoring and control technologies (IPM package, i.e., (i) monitoring, (ii) field sanitation, (iii) protein bait sprays, (iv) MAT, (v) augmentative parasitoid releases, and (vi) sterile insect releases) [22]. The HAWPM has set one of the best examples of using traps baited with solid dispensers of male lures in MAT and monitoring of Bactrocera fruit flies. However, there has been much concern about the possible non-target effects of such lures on beneficial insects. The use of male lures for fruit fly control may impact non-target insects or risk possible extinction of small endemic populations in large-scale fruit fly eradication programs [26].

In Bangladesh, a new species and 33 new country records for Tephritid fruit flies were reported [27-30]. Four species in particular, B. zonata, B. dorsalis, Z. tau, and Z. cucurbitae - inflict serious damage to fruits and fleshy vegetables production in Bangladesh. Recently, the pheromone traps have gained popularity and become a vital tool for pest monitoring in a wide range of crops in Bangladesh. The design of the pheromone trap [31, 32], its placement, and the ratio of the chemical components are the factors influencing the number of insect capture [33]. The formulation of different lures, use of novel lures [34-41], combination of lures and traps [42, 43] are also considered as critical issues for the capture of pestiferous fruit flies. There was also scanty of literature on the use of solid formulation of male lures and the impact of these lure baited traps on non-target and beneficial insects in Bangladesh. The present study, therefore, has been undertaken to determine the efficiency of three solid single lure plugs (ME, C-L, and TML) in conjunction with insecticidal strips (DDVP) baited traps on the capture of four economically important Dacine fruit flies in Bangladesh. We also evaluated non-target attraction effects to traps baited with these lures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Sites

In the present study the capture of two cucurbit pests Z. cucurbitae, Z. tau, and the fruit pests B. dorsalis and B. zonata were recorded at three green areas of Bangladesh during May-September, 2015. The experimental areas (Figures 1a, 1b) were: i. Atomic Energy Research Establishment (AERE) colony, Savar, Dhaka (8.64 ha) 23°57'35.60"N, 90°16'54.02"E, ii. AERE office campus, Savar, Dhaka (112.276 ha), 23°57'14.62"N, 90°16'44.79"E), and iii. Jahangirnagar University (JU) campus (214.62 ha) 23°52'8.85"N, 90°16'1.50"E) with mean monthly rainfall 394.5 mm, (minimum 185mm, maximum 623mm), mean monthly temperature 29.17 °C (minimum 25.7°C, maximum 31.8°C), and mean monthly relative humidity 77% (minimum 71%, maximum 81%). These areas mainly comprised of agricultural fields, backyard gardens, and mixed plantation with a diversity of vegetables and fruit trees planted, including jack fruit (Artocarpu sheterophyllus Lam.), guava (Psidium guajava L.), mango (Mangifera indica L.), and Oranges (Citrus), Star fruit (Carambola or Averrhoa), banana (Musa)  and also various vegetable hosts including melon (Cucumis), pumpkin (Cucurbita), Brinjal (Solanum melongena), chili peppers (Capsicum), etc. along with other non-host trees. The three experimental areas reflect typical of existence fruit and vegetable production and are commonly infested with Dacine fruit flies across much of Bangladesh.

 

a)

b)

Figure 1. a) Traps locations at AERE colony (23°57'35.60"N, 90°16'54.02"E), AERE office campus (23°57'14.62"N, 90°16'44.79"E). b) JU campus (23°52'8.85"N,90°16'1.50"E), (average temperature 30˚C and precipi. 55mm-601mm).

                                                                                                                                                                                                               

Three different solid single lure plugs: i. C-L ii. ME and iii. TML (Scentry Biologicals, Billings, Montana, USDA-APHIS-PPQ) and DDVP strips (10% dichlorvos (2,2-dichlorovynil dimethyl phosphate) (Vapertape® II, Hercon Environmental, Emingsville, Pennsylvania, USA) were used in traps. Traps baited with three different lures were placed at nine locations in each of the three experimental fields and were hung in tree branches about 1.5m above the ground in shaded areas using a metal hanger. Traps were made of a plastic container (1/2 ltr) with two round holes (10 mm) near the top of the container, to allow fly entry. The flies were collected at a weekly interval over 18 weeks. Traps were emptied once every week and all flies and non-target Arthropods captured were transported to the laboratory of Insect Biotechnology Division (IBD), AERE in plastic bags for counts. Weekly captured flies of the Zeugodacus/ Bactrocera spp. were identified to species level and recorded on MS Excel spreadsheet. To compensate for position effects, traps within an area were rotated clockwise after each week. Daily rainfall and temperature data for Dhaka were collected from the Bangladesh Meteorological Department, Agargaon, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

 

Statistical analysis

Compiled data were subjected to ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) using statistical Software Mini-Tab, USA (version-2017). The treatment means were compared using the Tukey HSD Test at P=0.05 probability level.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Five Dacine fruit flies (Z. cucurbitae, B. dorsalis, Z. tau, B. zonata, and B. nigrofemoralis (White & Tsuruta)), and one Dacaus species (Dacus longicornis (Widemann) were captured during the trapping experiment conducted at three green areas of Savar, Dhaka, Bangladesh. The prevalence of Dacine fruit flies was significantly higher at the JU campus comprising 89.56% B. dorsalis (mean 1614.1±14.9 fly over 18 weeks)/ (538.05±62.28fly/trap/week (FTW)) captured by ME baited traps. The comparatively higher number of Z. cucurbitae (138.0±21.83 FTW) and Z. tau (35.11±7.13 FTW) trapped by C-L from AERE office campus (Figure 3) and JU campus (Figure 4), respectively. No Bactrocera or Zeugodacus spp. was attracted to TML indicated the absence of Ceratitis or Anastrepha spp. at the experimental fields during the trial.

Z. cucurbitae captured from different campuses differed significantly (df=2, 51; F=6.12; P=0.004). Although the capture of Z. cucurbitae in the AERE office campus (138.0±21.83 FTW), and JU campus (122.44±13.53 FTW) did not differ significantly. But with the lowest capture of Z. cucurbitae (62.25±11.20 FTW) at the AERE colony differed statistically from the capture of two other campuses. The capture of Z. tau (35.11±7.13FTW) was significantly higher (df=2, 51; F=13.64; P=0.000) in JU campus. However, the fly capture was only 7.83±1.86 FTW and 6.30±1.82 FTW, respectively at the AERE office campus and AERE colony, and did not differ significantly. Significantly highest capture of B. dorsalis (538.05±62.28 FTW) was recorded on the JU campus (df=2, 51; F=33.32; P=0.000). The capture was 204.69±37.07 FTW, and 64.00±9.20 FTW at AERE office campus and AERE colony, respectively during the experimental time and significantly differed from B. dorsalis capture of JU campus. The capture of B. zonata was remarkably low from all three experimental sites and did not differ statistically (d=2, 51; F=2.89; P=0.065). The mean capture ranges from 0.77±0.37 to 4.06±1.28 FTW.

On the other hand, the comparative capture of four Bactrocera and Zeugodacus spp. at AERE campus differed significantly (d=3, 68; F=21.27; P=0.000). The higher number of B. dorsalis (204.7±157.2 FTW) captured followed by Z. cucurbitae (138.1±92.6 FTW), Z. tau (7.83±7.9 FTW), and lowest B. zonata (4.06±5.4 FTW). In the AERE colony the capture of four Bactrocera and Zeogodacus spp. also differed significantly (d=3, 68; F=20.80; P=0.000) (Figure 1). The higher number of B. dorsalis (64.00±39.07 FTW) was captured here followed by Z. cucurbitae (62.3±47.6 FTW), Z. tau (6.31±7.7 FTW), and lowest B. zonata (4.0±5.7).  Significantly higher capture of B. dorsalis (538.05±62.28 FTW) (d=3, 68; F=59.80; P=0.000) was recorded from the JU campus followed by Z. cucurbitae (122.4±57.2 FTW), Z. tau (35.11±30.28 FTW). The capture of B. zonata (0.7±1.5 FTW) was significantly lowest among four spp. Total 132, 1304, and 21 non-target insects were captured in C-L, ME, and TML baited traps from AERE colony, AERE office campus, and JU campus, respectively (Table 1). The non-target insects viz., Drosophilidae, Hymenoptea (black ants), Milichiidae, Muscidae, were abundant in traps baited with ME and C-L and mostly attracted to decaying fruit flies in the trap. Control traps hardly capture non-target insects. Scavengers are the non-target species in the most commonly captured families.


 

Table 1. The capture of non-target insects in traps baited with ME, C-L and TML along with decaying fruit flies compared with control traps placed at three experimental fields of Savar area during May-September, 2015.

Experimental fields

Order/Family/Genus/Species

Mean (±se) number of non-target insects

captured in trap/week

Cue-lure (C-L)

Methyl- eugenol (ME)

Trimed-lure (TML)

Control

AERE Colony

Coleoptera (beetles)

Drosophilidae

Hymenoptera (black ants)

Lonchaeidae

Milichiidae

Muscidae (Atherigona)

Platystomatidae

(Agadasys  hexablepharis)

-

0.3±0.1

1.66±0.7

-

0.11±0.1

0.55±1.1

0.01±0 .1

0.16 ±0.1

0.27±0.6

1.16 ±2.5

0.11±0

0.96 ±0

0.33 ±0.5

-

-

0.11 ±0.1

-

-

0.16±0.2

-

-

-

-

0.11±0.1

-

-

-

 

AERE Office Campus

Arachnids (jumping spiders- Salticidae)

Braconidae

Coleoptera (beetles)

Drosophilidae

Hymenoptera (Pompilidae, weaver ants- Oecophylla, black ants)

Lepidoptera (moths)

Orthoptera (grasshoppers)

Milichiidae

Muscidae (Atherigona)

Platystomatidae

(Agadasys  hexablepharis)

Sarcophagidae

0.33 ±0.2

 

-

-

14.0±33.0

2.94±1.7

 

 

-

10.33±14.6

1.4±1.8

1.5±2.0

 

0.01±0.1

0.05 ±0.1

 

0.1±0.1

0.01±0.2

21.6±47.2

7.6±7.8

 

 

0.16±0.5

4.2 ±11.0

1.6±0.9

0.6±1.5

0.01±0.1

 

-

-

 

-

-

-

0.55±0.1

 

 

-

-

-

-

-

 

-

-

 

-

-

-

-

-

 

0.2±0.1

-

-

-

-

 

-

JU campus

 

Arachnids (jumping spiders-Salticidae)

Bugs

Coleoptera (beetles)

Drosophilidae                                                                            Hymenoptera (black ants)

Lepidoptera (moths)

Milichiidae

Muscidae

Platystomatidae

(Agadasys hexablepharis)

0.16±0 .1

 

0.72±0.4

0.55±0.1

-

3.0±0.7

0.16 ± 0.5

5.16±1.6

0.83±0.8

1.5±2.0

 

0.22±0

 

0.16±0                       -

0.60±0.1

0.66±0.2

3.22 ±2.1

3.16±0.5

-

2.94±3.6

 

-

 

-

-

-

-

-

-

0.11±0.1

-

 

-

 

-

-

-

-

-

0.10±0.1

-

-

 


In the present study, the highest number of B. dorsalis was captured than Z. cucurbitae, Z. tau, and B. zonata using solid lure plugs of ME, and C-L baited traps at AERE office campus, which has partial similarities with Hossain et. al. 2019 [44] findings who reported the presence of polyphagous fruit fly pest dominated mainly by B. dorsalis (58.0%), followed by Z. cucurbitae (23.6%) and Z. tau (13.5%), and non-pest B. rubigina (3.6%) using traps baited with solid lure plugs of ME, C-L and zingerone during their two years survey at AERE office campus. Our experiment with solid lure plugs of ME, C-L and TML baited traps over 18 weeks also revealed that the overall Dacine fruit fly capture was higher in JU campus than AERE office campus and AERE colony (Figures 2, 3, and 4). However, the parahormone lure stick commonly used by fruits and vegetable growers of Bangladesh consists of a small cotton wick/rope impregnated with 2 ml of lure (Safe Agriculture Bangladesh Ltd. (SABL) and a cotton ball was placed inside each trap soaked with 4% sevin-solution (contact poison of ACI. Limited, Bangladesh) to trap and kill the flies. An experiment conducted at a mango orchard in Chapai Nawabganj revealed that traps baited with a solid single lure plug of ME (Scentry Biologicals, Billings, Montana, USDA APHIS- PPQ) captured a comparatively higher number of B. dosalis and B. zonata than traps baited with commercially available ME impregnated cotton rope/wick plug (Ispahani Co. Ltd., Bangladesh) (unpublished data).The solid lure plugs of ME also used to study the population fluctuation of male B. dorsalis and to reveal the abundance of peach fruit fly, B. zonata in mango orchards [45, 46]. Field studies shown that traps baited with solid dispensers of male lures and liquid lures catch an almost similar number of Bactrocera males [20, 24]. Although most of these studies [17, 20, 25] support the adoption of an alternative delivery system of lures, still the solid dispensers or lure impregnated cotton wick/rope tested for trapping invariably need to use an insecticide (either nailed or DDVP or any contact poison) together with the male lure.


 

Figure 2. Mean (±se) weekly capture of B. zonata, B. dorsalis, Z. tau, and Z. cucurbitae using three solid lure plugs (C-L, ME, and TML) and insecticide strips baited traps at AERE colony, May-September, 2015.

 

Figure 3. Mean (±se) weekly capture of B. zonata, B. dorsalis, Z. tau, and Z. cucurbitae captured per week using three solid lure plugs (C-L, ME, and TML) and insecticide strips baited traps at AERE office campus, May-September, 2015.

 

Figure 4. Mean (±se) weekly capture of B. zonata, B. dorsalis, Z. tau, and Z. cucurbitae captured per week using three solid lure plugs (C-L, ME and TML) and insecticide strips baited traps at JU campus, May-September, 2015.

 


The present findings on capture of non-target insects in different lure baited traps have similarities with Leblanc et al. 2010a; 2010b [47, 48] reported capture of a broad diversity of non-target insects, dominated by the Drosophilidae, Ceratopogonidae, Cecidomyiidae, Chloropidae, Calliphoridae, Neriidae, Muscidae, Sarcophagidae, and Corylophidae while comparing traps baited with multi lure i.e., three different food attractants for Tephritid fruit flies in Hawaii. The present findings also agree with other reports published on scavenger attraction to food lures [26, 47, 48] and decaying fruit flies in traps baited with male lure [49]. However, the capture rate of non-targeted insects was much lower than the above-mentioned studies due to the use of synthetic lures rather than food lures. The study was conducted over a comparatively short period (18 weeks, May-September, 2015), and, so, the results apply only to the weather conditions and host availability during the period of the particular year i.e., 2015. Results may vary in the autumn and cooler winter months.

CONCLUSION

This work suggested that the effect of the solid lure plugs on Dacine fruit fly species were usually species-specific. Solid lures and DDVP insecticide strips were found convenient in handling and effective for mass-trapping of Dacine fruit flies and did not exert much detrimental effect on non-target beneficial insects. Non-target insects were not only attracted to lures baited traps but also to randomly capture decaying Bactrocera species. The negative non-target impact of male lures is likely to be minimal. Further investigation should be focused on the use of novel lure matrix using natural products, as well as the formulation of lures, and find much safer alternative insecticide on the capture of Dacine fruit fly species. These will eventually help to use in detection and MAT in conjunction with protein bait sprays, sanitation, and environmentally friendly technique like the Sterile Insect Technique in Area-Wide Integrated Fruit Fly Management Program (AW-IFFMP) in Bangladesh.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors are grateful to Dr. Roger I. Vargas ((1947-2018), Daniel K. Inouye, U. S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Hilo, HI, the U.S.A. for sending Solid Lure Plugs and DDVP.  Sincere thanks go to Dr. Luc Leblanc, Department of Entomology, Plant Pathology and Nematology, University of Idaho, the USA for the identification of non-target insects captured during the field trials. we also thankful to Mr. M. Rahman, Bangladesh Meteorological Department, Agargaon, Dhaka for Providing the data of daily temperature and rainfall.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

 

FINANCIAL SUPPORT: The project was run as a part of R & D program of the Insect Biotechnology Division, Institute of Food and Radiation Biology (IFRB). The research was conducted with the financial support of IBD, IFRB, BAEC.

 

ETHICS STATEMENT: All the procedures performed in this experiment involving human participants were subjected to the ethical standards approved by the local ethics committee of Bangladesh.


References

1.       Vargas RI, Pinero JC, Leblanc L. An overview of pest species of Bactrocera fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the integration of biopesticides with other biological ap-proaches for their management with a focus on the Pacific region. Insects. 2015;6(2):297-318. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects6020297

2.       Freidberg A, Kovac D, Shiao S. A revision of Ichneumonopsis Hardy, 1973 (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae: Gastrozonini), Oriental bamboo-shoot fruit flies. Europ J Taxon. 2017;(317):1-23. https://doi.org/10.5852/ejt.2017.317

3.       Shelly TE, Kurashima RS. Capture of Mediterranean fruit flies and melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in food-baited traps in Hawaii. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc. 2016;48:71-84.

4.       Shelly TE, Kurashima RS. Field Capture of Male Mediterranean Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Traps Baited with Varying Amounts of Trimedlure. Fla Entomol. 2020;103(1):16-22. DOI: 10.1653/024.103.0403

5.       Vargas RI, Shelly TE, Leblanc L, Pin˜ero JC. Recent advances in methyl eugenol and cue-lure technologies for fruit fly detection, monitoring, and control. In: Litwack G (ed) Vitamins and hormones, section: pheromones. Acad, Burlingt, 2010a; 83:575-96.

6.       Vargas RI, Mau RFL, Stark JD, Pinero JC, Leblanc L, Souder SK. Evaluation of methyl eugenol and cue-lure traps with solid lure and insecticide dispensers for fruit fly monitoring and male annihilation in the Hawaii area-wide pest management program. J Econ Entomol. 2010b;103(2):409-15.

7.       Vargas RI, Shelly TE, Leblanc L, Pinero JC. Recent advances in methyl eugenol and cue lure technologies for fruit fly detection, monitoring and control. In G. Litwack (ed.), Vitamins and hormones, section: pheromones. Acad, Burlingt, VT. 2010c; 83:575-96.

8.       Manoukis NC, Vargas RI, Carvalho L, Fezza T, Wilson S,  Collier T, et al. A field test on the effectiveness of male annihilation technique against Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) at varying application densities. PLoS One. 2019;14(3):e0213337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213337

9.       Khan M, Bari MA, Hossain M, Leblanc L, Vargas RI. Influence of Solid Lure and DDVP for Detection and Male Annihilation of Bactrocera Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Non-target Insects in Field Trials. First Symposium of Tephritid Workers of Asia, Australia & Oceania (TAAO 2016). Palm Garden Hotel, Putrajaya, Malaysia. 2016.

10.   Park SJ, Siderhurst SM, Jamie IM, Taylor PW. Hydrolysis of Queensland fruit fly, Bactroceratryoni (Froggatt) attractants: kinetics and implications for biological activity. Aust J Chem. 2016;69(10):1162-6.

11.   Nishida R, Tan KH. Search for new fruit fly attractants from plants: a review. In B. Sabater-Munoz, T. Vera, R. Pereira, and W. Orankanok (eds.), Proceedings, 9th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, 12-16 May 2014, Bangkok, Thailand. 2016:249-62.

12.   Katte T, Tan KH, Su ZH. Ono H, Nishida R. Phenylbutanoids in two closely related fruit fly orchids, Bulbophyllum hortorum and B. macranthoides subspecies tollenoniferum: multiple attractive components for the raspberry ketone-sensitive tephritid fruit fly species. Appl Entomol Zool. 2020;55:55-64.

13.   Park SJ, De Faveri S, Jamie IM, Taylor PW. Zingerone in the flower of the exotic plant Passiflora maliformis responsible for attracting Bactrocera jarvisi. In 6th Australian Biology of Tephritid Fruit Flies Meeting, 6-7 March, Canberra, ACT. 2018.

14.   Siderhurst MS, Park SJ, Buller CN, Jamie IM, Manoukis NC, Jang EB, et al. Raspberry Ketone Trifluoroacetate, a New Attractant for the Queensland Fruit Fly, Bactrocera Tryoni (Froggatt). J Chem Ecol. 2016; 42(2):156-62. DOI 10.1007/s10886-016-0673-3

15.   Siderhurst MS, Park SJ, Jamie IM, De Faveri S. Electroantennogram responses of six Bactrocera and Zeugodacus species to raspberry ketone analogues. Environ Chemist. 2017;14(6):378-84. DOI: 10.1071/en17091

16.   Vargas RI, Miller NW, Stark JD. Field trials of Spinosad as a replacement for nale dddvp and malathion in methyl eugenol and cue-lure bucket trap to attract and kill male oriental fruit flies and melon flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hawaii. J Econ Entomol. 2003;96(6):1780-5.

17.   Shelly TE, Kurashima RS, Fezza T, Cook P, Cook D. Wafers in Saddle Bags: A Novel Dispensing System for Male Lures Used to Detect Invasive Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc. 2019;51(2):47-58.

18.   Son AR, Suh SJ, Choi DS. Non-target insects captured in tephritid fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) surveillance traps in South Korea: A survey-based study. J Asia-Pasific Biodive. 2018;12(1):129-33.

19.   Vargas RI, Burns RE, Mau RFL, Stark JD, Cook P, Pinero JC. Captures in methyl eugenol and cue-lure detection traps with and without insecticides and with a Farma Tech solid lure and insecticide dispenser. J Econ Entomol. 2009;102(2):552-7.

20.   Leblanc L, Vargas RI, Mackey B, Putoa R, Pinero JC. Evaluation of cue-lure and methyl eugenol solid lure and insecticide dispensers for fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) monitoring and control in Tahiti. Fla Entomol. 2011;94(3):510-6.

21.   Mironenko АV, Engashev SV, Deltsov AA, Vasilevich FI, Engasheva ES, Shabunin SV. Study of Acute Toxicity Flyblok Insecticidal Tag. Pharmacophore. 2020;11(4):60-4.

22.   Mau RFL, Jang EB, Vargas RI. The Hawaii fruit fly area-wide fruitfly pest management programme: influence of partnership and a good education programme. In Vreysen, M.J.B., A.S. Robinson, and J. Hendrichs (eds.), Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests: from research to Field Implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. 2007: 671-83.

23.   Shelly TE, Kurashima RS. Capture of melon flies and oriental fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) in traps baited with torula yeast-borax or CeraTrap in Hawaii. Fla Entomol. 2018;101(1):144-6.

24.   Shelly TE. Male Lures and the Detection of Bactrocera Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Performance of Solid Dispensers with Separate Insecticidal Strips Relative to Standard Liquid Lures. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc. 2013;45:119-28.

25.   Shelly TE, Kurashima RS, Fezza T. Field capture of male oriental fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in traps baited with solid dispensers containing varying amounts of methyl eugenol. Florida Entomol. 2021;103(4):516-8.

26.   Asquith A, Messing RH. Attraction of Hawaiian ground litter invertebrates to protein hydrolysate bait. Environ Entomol. 1992;21(5):1022-8.

27.   Leblanc L, Hossain MA, Khan SA, San Jose M, Rubinoff D. A preliminary survey of the fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) of Bangladesh. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc. 2013;45:51-8. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/31004

28.   Khan M, Leblanc L, Bari MA, Vargas RI. First record of the fruit fly Bactrocera (Bac-trocera) nigrofemoralis White &Tsuruta (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Bangladesh. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2015;3(5):387-9.

29.   Khan M, Bari MA, Hossain M, Kovac D, Freidberg A, Royer J, et al. A prelimi¬nary survey of bamboo-shoot fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Acanthonevrini, Gastrozoni¬ni), with four new records from Bangladesh. Acad J Entomol. 2017;10(1): 1-4.

30.   Leblanc L, Hossain MA, Doorenweerd C, Khan SA, Momen M, San Jose M, et al. Six years of fruit fly surveys in Bangladesh: a new species, 33 new country records and recent discovery of the highly invasive Bactrocera carambolae (Diptera, Tephritidae). Zookeys. 2019;876:87-109.

31.   Dominack BC, Galvin T, Deane D, Fanson BG.  Evaluation of Propodeal cone traps for surveillance of Dacinae in New South Wales, Australia. Crop Protec. 2019;126 104940.

32.   Aljadani NA, Elnaggar MH, Assaggaff AI. The Role of Fish Oil and Evening Primrose Oil against the Toxicity of Fenitrothion Pesticide in Male Rats. Int J Pharm Res Allied Sci. 2020;9(2):108-22.

33.   Broughton S, Rahman T. Evaluation of lures and traps for male and female monitoring of Mediterranean fruit fly in pome and stone fruit. J Appl Entomol. 2016;141(6):1-9. doi: 10.1111/jen.12360

34.   Royer JE, Khan M, Mayer DG. Methyl-isoeugenol, a highly attractive male lure for the cucurbit flower pest Zeugodacus diversus (Coquillett) (syn. Bactrocera diversa) (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae). J Econ Entomol. 2018;111(3):1197-1201. doi: 10.1093/jee/toy068

35.   Royer JE, Agovaua S, Bokosou J, Kurika K, Mararuai A, Mayer D, et al. Responses of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) to new attractants in Papua New Guinea. Aust Entomol. 2018;57(1):40-9.

36.   McQuate GT, Royer JE, Sylva CD. Field Trapping Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae) with Select Eugenol Analogs That Have Been Found to Attract Other ‘Non-Responsive’ Fruit Fly Species. Insects. 2018;9(2):50; doi:10.3390/insects902005

37.   Wee L, Royer JE, Herring J, Mayer DG, Tan KH. Relative response of male Bactrocera frauenfeldi (Diptera: Tephritidae) to phenylbutanoid phytochemicals: implications for fruit fly control and plant-insect interactions. Chemoecology. 2020; 30(6):305-14. doi.org/10.1007/s00049-020-00320-6

38.   Royer JE, Mille C, Cazeres S, Brinon J, Mayer DG.  Isoeugenol, a more attractive male lure for the cue-lure-responsive pest fruit fly Bactrocera curvipennis (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae), and new records of species responding to zingerone in New Caledonia. J Econ Entomol. 2019; 112(3):1502-7.

39.   Royer JE, Tan KH, Mayer DG. Comparative trap catches of male Bactrocera, Dacus and Zeugodacus fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) with four floral phenylbutanoid lures (anisyl acetone, cue-lure, raspberry ketone and zingerone) in Queensland, Australia. Environ Entomol. 2020;49(4):815-22. doi: 10.1093/ee/nvaa056

40.   Wee SL, Chinvinijkul S, Tan KH, Nishida R. A new and highly selective male lure for the guava fruit fly Bactrocera correcta. J Pest Sci. 2018;91(2):691-8.

41.   Dowell RV. Attraction of non-target insects to three male fruit fly lures in California. The Pan-Pacific Entomol. 2015;91(1):1-19. doi:10.3956/2014-91.1.001

42.   Lasa R, Herrera F, Miranda E, Gomez E, Antonio S, Aluja M. Economic and highly effective trap–lure combination to monitor the Mexican fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) at the orchard level. J Econ Entomol. 2015;108(4):1637-45.

43.   Lloyd DS, Soopaya R,  Butler RC,  Vargas RI,  Souder  SK,  Jessup AJ,  et al. Effect of Lure Combination on Fruit Fly Surveillance Sensitivity. Scientific Rep. 2019;9(1):1-11.

44.   Hossain MA, Leblanc L, Momen M, Bari MA, Khan SA. Seasonal abundance of economically important fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae: Dacinae) in Bangladesh in relation to abiotic factors and host plants. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc. 2019; 51(2):25-37.

45.   Uddin MS, Reza MH, Hossain MM, Hossain MA, Islam MZ. Population fluctuation of male oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) in a mango orchard of Chapainawabganj. Int J Expt Agric. 2016;6(1):1-3.

46.   Hossain MA, Momen M, Uddin MS, Khan SA, Howlader AJ. Abundance of peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) in mango orchard. Bangladesh J Entomol. 2017;27(2):25-34.

47.   Leblanc L, Vargas RI, Rubinoff D. Attraction of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) and endemic and introduced nontarget insects to BioLure bait and its individual components in Hawaii. Environ Entomol. 2010a;39(3):989-98.

48.   Leblanc L, Roger I, Vargas RI, Rubinoff D. A Comparison of Nontarget Captures in BioLure and Liquid Protein Food Lures in Hawaii. Proc Hawaii Entomol Soc. 2010b; 42:15-22.

49.   Leblanc L, Rubinoff D, Vargas RI. Attraction of nontarget species to fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) male lures and decaying fruit flies in Hawaii. Environ Entomol. 2009;38(5):1446-61.


Entomology and Applied Science Letters is an international peer reviewed publication which publishes scientific research & review articles related to insects that contain information of interest to a wider audience, e.g. papers bearing on the theoretical, genetic, agricultural, medical and biodiversity issues. Emphasis is also placed on the selection of comprehensive, revisionary or integrated systematics studies of broader biological or zoogeographical relevance. Papers on non-insect groups are no longer accepted. In addition to full-length research articles and reviews, the journal publishes interpretive articles in a Forum section, Short Communications, and Letters to the Editor. The journal publishes reports on all phases of medical entomology and medical acarology, including the systematics and biology of insects, acarines, and other arthropods of public health and veterinary significance.
Issue 2 Volume 8 - 2021
Call for Papers
Entomology and Applied Science Letters supports the submission of entomological papers that contain information of interest to a wider reader groups e. g. papers bearing on taxonomy, phylogeny, biodiversity, ecology, systematic, agriculture, morphology. The selection of comprehensive, revisionary or integrated systematics studies of broader biological or zoogeographical relevance is also important. Distinguished entomologists drawn from different parts of the world serve as honorary members of the Editorial Board. The journal encompasses all the varied aspects of entomological research. This has become the need felt in scientific research due to the emphasis on intra-, inter-, and multi-disciplinary approach.