Detection/Monitoring Of Bactrocera Latifrons (Diptera .
AroceedingsPssessing newofluresthe HforawaiianBactroceraEntomologicallatifronsSociety (2013) 45:69–8169Detection/Monitoring of Bactrocera latifrons(Diptera: Tephritidae):Assessing the Potential of Prospective New LuresGrant T. McQuate1, Eric B. Jang1, and Matthew Siderhurst2USDA-ARS, U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, 64 Nowelo Street, Hilo, HI96720 USA. 2Eastern Mennonite University, 1200 Park Road, Harrisonburg, VA 22802 USA.1Abstract. Bactrocera latifrons is a tephritid fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) whichhas a host list of 59 plant species from 14 plant families, with over 70% of thehost plant species coming from the plant families Solanaceae and Cucurbitaceae.Bactrocera latifrons is of primarily Asian distribution, but its range has expandedthrough introductions into Hawaii, Okinawa (Japan), Tanzania, and Kenya. Thedocumented introductions into countries outside its native distribution show thatthis species poses a risk of introductions into other countries where it does notpresently occur, particularly through the movement of infested fruit. As withother tephritid fruit fly species, establishment of B. latifrons can have significanteconomic consequences, including damage and loss of food production, as wellas requirements for implementation of costly quarantine treatments to permitexport of commodities susceptible to infestation by B. latifrons and inspectionof susceptible imported commodities. Because of the economic importance of B.latifrons, reliable methods are needed to detect, monitor, and control this species.We conducted field trials with a wild B. latifrons population, supported by theinvasive weed, turkeyberry, Solanum torvum (Solanaceae), to compare attractiveness of prospective new lures with several attractants that have often been used fordetection and/or monitoring of tephritid fruit flies. The tests reported here haveagain shown higher B. latifrons catch in traps baited with alpha-ionol cade oilrelative to traps baited with protein baits. Among the attractants to which bothmale and female B. latifrons are attracted, fly response is significantly better to aSolulys AST–based protein bait than to other attractants tested. Beyond this, therewas no significant difference in catch among the (wet) torula yeast baited trap andfour (dry) alternative attractants (ammonia, biolure, rainbow plug and cucumbervolatile plug). This shows that these dry trap alternatives have a comparable abilityto catch B. latifrons adults as a wet protein bait trap (though not comparable to aSolulys AST–based wet trap).Key words: attractants, alpha-ionol cade oil, Solulys AST, torula yeast, Biolure,ammonium acetate, cucumber volatile plugThis article reports the results of research only.Mention of a proprietary product does not constitute an endorsement or a recommendation by theUSDA for its use. USDA is an equal opportunityprovider and employer.IntroductionBactrocera latifrons is a tephritid fruitfly (Diptera: Tephritidae) which has a hostlist, based on published field infestationdata, of 59 plant species from 14 plantfamilies. The predominant host plant
70family is Solanaceae, with published fieldinfestation data for 34 species. The familywith the 2nd highest number of documented infested species is Cucurbitaceae, forwhich there are published field infestation data for 9 plant species (McQuateand Liquido 2013). Bactrocera latifronsis of primarily Asian distribution (e.g.,Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, China[Fujian, Yunnan, Hong Kong, Hainan],Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, W. Malaysia,Singapore, Taiwan, and Brunei) (Carrollet al. 2002), but its range has expandedthrough introductions into Hawaii (Vargasand Nishida 1985), Okinawa (Japan) (Shimizu et al. 2007), Tanzania (Mwatawalaet al. 2007), and Kenya (De Meyer et al.2013, S. Ekesi, unpublished records). Thedocumented introductions into countriesoutside its native distribution show thatthis species poses a risk of introductionsinto other countries where it does notpresently occur, particularly through themovement of infested fruit. As with othertephritid fruit fly species, establishmentof B. latifrons can have significant economic consequences, including damageand loss of food production, as well asrequirements for implementation of costlyquarantine treatments to permit export ofcommodities susceptible to infestation byB. latifrons and inspection of susceptibleimported commodities.Because of the economic importance ofB. latifrons, reliable methods are neededto detect, monitor, and control this species. This species, however, does notrespond to either of the strong male lures(methyl eugenol, cue-lure) to which mostBactrocera spp. respond (McQuate andPeck 2001). Flath et al. (1994) identifiedalpha-ionol as a B. latifrons male lure.Enhanced attraction was subsequentlyreported when alpha-ionol was presentedwith a synergist, cade oil (McQuate andPeck 2001, McQuate et al. 2004). Thismixed lure has been shown to be effec-McQuate et al.tive for detection and monitoring of maleB. latifrons (McQuate et al. 2008). Labstudies have also shown that the introduction of an oxygen atom at the 3-position ofthe alpha-ionone or alpha-ionol moleculesimproves the attractiveness of alpha-ionolto male B. latifrons (Ishida et al. 2008),with improved attractiveness also foundfor several compounds derived from these3-oxygenated derivatives of alpha-iononeand alpha-ionol (Enomoto et al. 2010). Notesting, though, has yet been done to see ifcade oil would synergize the attractivenessof these compounds. In addition to identification of these male attractants, otheridentified attractants have included proteinbaits (McQuate and Peck 2001 [Provesta621, Integrated Ingredients, Bartlesville,OK, USA], Mwatawala et al. 2007 [specific protein bait used not identified],Mziray et al. 2010 [torula yeast, ScentryBiologicals, Inc., Billings, MT, USA]),and three component lure (Mwatawala etal. 2007: reported attraction based on thecapture of a single female B. latifrons).One other bait that may have attractantpotential for use in detection trapping isthe “cucumber essence” bait developed formelon fly, Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Siderhurst and Jang 2010). This baitwas developed through the identificationof cucumber (Cucumis sativus L. [Cucurbitaceae]) volatiles that were attractive tomelon fly adults and has been shown infield tests to be more attractive to melonfly than a Solulys AST (Roquette America,Inc., Bridgeview, IL) based protein bait.Because cucumber is also a host of B. latifrons (Liquido et al. 1994, McQuate andLiquido 2013), it is appropriate to test theattractiveness of this bait to B. latifrons.Establishment of the relative effectiveness of different potential B. latifronsadult attractants is of value for detection,monitoring and suppression efforts directed towards B. latifrons populations.Here, we present results of field trials with
Assessing new lures for Bactrocera latifronsa wild B. latifrons population to compareattractiveness of prospective new lureswith several attractants that have oftenbeen used for detection and/or monitoringof tephritid fruit flies.Materials and MethodsStudy site. Field trials were all conducted in a cattle pasture in the vicinity ofPepeekeo, Hawaii (UTM Easting, Northing 281611.73, 2195767.77 m Zone 05 Q) inwhich there were well-developed patchesof turkeyberry (Solanum torvum Sw.),known to be a good host of B. latifrons(Liquido et al. 1994, McQuate and Liquido2013). This field supported a B. latifronsfield population of satisfactory size forthe present studies and also includedB. dorsalis (Hendel) and B. cucurbitaepopulations. A total of 8 (Bioassays 1 and2) or 9 (Bioassay 3) trapping sites wereselected, each in the midst of a turkeyberrypatch. Trapping sites were all at least 10 mapart. A weather station, maintained in anearby field, provided temperature, relative humidity and rainfall data throughoutthe course of all of the field trials.Fruit collections. In order to providean assessment of the magnitude of adultfly emergence potential in the test fieldthat could contribute to trap catch, 100mature green turkeyberry fruits werecollected from each trap site (no groundfruits were collected) near the beginningand about the middle of each Bioassay(Bioassay 1: 5/24/2011 & 6/21/2011; Bioassay 2: 8/19/2011 & 9/9/2011; Bioassay3: 9/20/2011 & 10/18/2011). An additionalcollection was also made at the end ofBioassay 1 (7/12/2011). Collected fruitswere weighed and then placed in screenedcontainers to which sand had been addedto serve as a pupation medium. The sandwas sieved through a strainer weekly forfour successive weeks in order to recoverpupating larvae and puparia, which wereplaced in a small screened cup with sand71and held for adult emergence. Speciesidentification was made of emerged adultsas well as unemerged pupae, determination of the latter being made based onthe numbers of tubules and form of theprothoracic spiracles (White and ElsonHarris, 1992).Attractants tested. Baits tested included two protein baits (wet traps) and fivedry trap-based attractants (one of whichwas alpha-ionol cade oil, the establishedmale lure for B. latifrons), together with awater trap (wet trap control) and a dry trapcontrol. Yellow-bottomed Multilure traps(Better World Manufacturing, Fresno,CA) were used for each treatment. Furtherdetails on these treatments are presentedbelow:1) Solulys AST. A 300 ml bait solutionwas prepared by mixing 8% Solulys AST[Roquette America, Inc., Bridgeview, IL]powder (8.0% w/w) with 4.0% (w/w) boraxand 88% (w/w) water. This has been thestandard protein bait that we have used forboth melon fly and B. latifrons.2) Torula yeast. A 300 ml bait solutionwas prepared by dissolving 3 torula yeasttablets (ERA International Ltd., Freeport,NY) in 300 ml water. The dried 5.0 grams(plus or minus 0.5 grams) tablet consistedof four parts torula yeast (Lake StatesType B) and five parts dry borax decahydrate by weight. This bait has commonlybeen used for general fruit fly detectiontrapping in California (California Department of Food & Agriculture 2010).3) Biolure (or “3-component lure”).For this treatment, three separate chemicalrelease packets (one each of ammoniumacetate, trimethylamine and putrescine)were attached to the inside of each trap(Biolure 3-Component Fruit Fly Bait;Suterra, Wenatchee, WA, USA). A yellowsticky card was attached internally to immobilize attracted flies.4) Rainbow plug. This treatment is analternative formulation of a “3-component
72lure,” formulated into a solid plug (ScentryBiologicals, Inc., Billings, MT). It is notsold on the open market but can be usedin government (federal and state) trappingprograms. A yellow sticky card was attached internally to immobilize attractedflies.5) “Cucumber Volatile Blend” plug.This treatment incorporated a syntheticlure developed as a plug for attraction offemale melon flies (Siderhurst and Jang,2010) (Scentry Biologicals, Inc., Billings,MT). A yellow sticky card was attachedinternally to immobilize attracted flies.6) Ammonia. This treatment includedonly an ammonium acetate chemical release packet, just one of the three packetsused in Treatment no. 3 above (Suterra,Wenatchee, WA, USA). This packet wasattached to the inside of each trap. A yellow sticky card was attached internally toimmobilize attracted flies.7) Water. This trap was baited only withwater and a surfactant (wet control). Totalvolume was 300 ml (299 ml water 1 mlTween 20 [Fisher-Scientific, Fair Lawn,NJ]).8) Yellow sticky card. This treatmentincluded only a yellow sticky card, attached internally to immobilize attractedflies (dry control).9) Alpha-ionol Cade Oil. This treatment, the standard male attractant for B.latifrons, consisted of 2.0 ml -buten-2-ol, obtained from BedoukianResearch, Inc., Danbury, CT) and 1.0ml rectified cade oil (Penta Manufacturing, West Caldwell, NJ) held on separate3.8 cm long x 1.0 cm diameter cottonwicks placed in separate plastic basketssuspended at the bottom of the attractantreservoir of the trap. A yellow sticky cardwas attached internally to immobilize attracted flies.Bioassays. Three separate bioassayswere conducted. The first (Bioassay 1)McQuate et al.compared catch in traps baited in treatments 1–8 listed above. The second (Bioassay 2) compared catch in traps baitedwith a “Cucumber Volatile Blend” Plug(treatment no. 5 above) in wet traps versusdry traps. The last bioassay (Bioassay 3)compared B. latifrons catch in traps baitedwith fresh versus aged alpha-ionol cadeoil versus catch in fresh versus aged deployment of several of the more attractivebaits identified in Bioassay no. 1. Furtherdetails on these 3 bioassays are presentedbelow.Bioassay 1. Response to fresh baits(trap catch where bait is aged only up to7 days) was compared, with fresh baitprovided every week. Replication was intime rather than in space. Treatments (onetrap each) were randomly assigned to the 8trapping sites. Traps were serviced twice aweek (Tuesday and Friday), with all trapsrandomly rotated to other sites each weekafter the Tuesday servicing. At the Fridaytrap servicing, water was added to liquidbaits to replace evaporative water loss overtime, returning the volume to 300 ml. Inthe dry traps, all yellow sticky cards werereplaced after the Tuesday trap servicings.Traps were serviced for 8 weeks, throughwhich time each trap was deployed onetime at each of the eight trap sites. Initialtrap deployment was May 24, 2011, withthe final trap service on July 19, 2011.Bioassay 2. In earlier trapping trials,catch of melon flies in traps baited withthe “cucumber volatile blend” was foundto be better when deployed as a wet traprather than as a dry trap (EBJ unpublisheddata). The wet trap in those trials used a10% (v/v) polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (270 ml water; 30 ml PEG) in thetrap. The addition of PEG both minimizeswater evaporation from the trap and helpspreserve any trapped flies. Because ofthat experience, we compared catch ofB. latifrons in wet versus dry deployments of traps baited with the cucumber
Assessing new lures for Bactrocera latifronsvolatile blend plug. A total of eight trapswere randomly assigned to 8 trappingsites (four wet traps and four dry traps,with bait in two traps in each treatmentallowed to age over the four week trial andfresh bait provided each week in the othertwo traps of each treatment). Traps wereset out on Tuesday and serviced twice aweek (Friday and Tuesday), with all trapsrandomly rotated to other sites each weekafter the Tuesday servicing. At the Fridaytrap servicing, water was added to liquidbaits to return the volume to 300 ml. Inthe dry traps, all yellow sticky cards werereplaced on Tuesdays. Traps were servicedfor 4 weeks, through which time each traptype was deployed one time at each of theeight trap sites. Initial trap deployment wasAugust 16, 2011, with the final trap serviceon Sept.13, 2011.Bioassay 3. In this test, more effectivebaits identified for B. latifrons in Bioassay1 (ammonium acetate and Biolure) werefurther tested to compare the responseof B. latifrons to them relative to theresponse to the established B. latifronsmale lure, alpha-ionol cade oil. Alsotested was the effect of lure aging ofthese three attractants (alpha-ionol cadeoil, Biolure, and ammonium acetate) onresponse of wild B. latifrons. Bactroceralatifrons response to traps baited weeklywith fresh bait, versus traps in which thelure was weathered up to nine weeks,was compared through weekly servicing.Comparison was also made with responseto traps baited with Solulys AST, torulayeast and water, for which fluids werereplaced each week. Because of a limitedavailability of good trap sites at least 10 mdistant from other good trap sites, neitherthe treatments with the fresh baits nor thetreatments with the weathered baits werereplicated in space. All nine treatmentstested (both fresh and aged alpha-ionol cade oil, Biolure and ammonium acetate,as well as fresh Solulys AST, torula yeast73and water) were initially randomly assigned to trap sites with traps subsequentlyrandomly rotated to other sites each week.Traps were serviced for a total of 9 weeks,through which time each trap type had aone week deployment at each of the ninetrap sites. Initial trap deployment was on20 Sept., 2011, with the last trap serviceon 22 Nov., 2011.Statistical analysis. By replicating intime rather than in space (Bioassays 1 and3), there could be a risk that trapping in agiven week could affect (e.g., reduce) trapcatch in subsequent weeks, thereby violating the requisite independence of replicateresults in parametric statistical analyses.However, the authors feel that the resultsof the fruit collections show that there wassignificant continued recruitment to thefield population. With that recruitment,combined with natural fly mortality, we feelthat trap catch results among weeks can beregarded as being independent, for whichparametric statistical analyses are valid.Bioassay 1. For each fruit fly species,the two catches within a week were addedtogether. Week totals were then squareroot transformed and difference in catchamong treatments tested by ANOVAof square root transformed week totals,with Tukey-Kramer HSD used for meansseparation. Significance of differences inpercentage female response among treatments was tested by ANOVA of arcsinetransformed weekly percentage femalecatch, with Tukey-Kramer HSD usedfor means separation (SAS Institute Inc.2010). Untransformed average catchesare presented in the figures summarizingaverage catch results by treatment.Bioassay 2. The two B. latifrons catcheswithin a week were added together. Weektotals were then square root transformedand difference in catch among fresh wetand fresh dry treatments was tested byANOVA of square root transformed weektotals.
74Bioassay 3. Average weekly B. latifrons catches one week after traps werefreshly baited (one replicate per treatmenteach week over 9 weeks) were squareroot transformed and difference in catchamong treatments tested by ANOVAof square root transformed week totals,with Tukey-Kramer HSD used for meansseparation. Significance of differences inpercentage female response among treatments (both among fresh trap catches andamong aged trap catches) was tested byANOVA of arcsine transformed weeklypercentage female catch, with TukeyKramer HSD used for means separation(SAS Institute Inc. 2010). Change in catchas baits were allowed to age over time wasapproximated through calculation of a bestfit exponential decay curve of trap catch,expressed as the percentage of fresh catch,versus age in weeks, with significance offit of the decay curve tested by ANOVA.The calculated best fit regression line wasthen used to estimate the age at which thecatch was reduced to 50% of the estimatedweek one catch.ResultsFruit collections. Bactrocera latifronsand B. dorsalis, but no B. cucurbitae, wererecovered from the turkeyberry collections (Table 1). Bactrocera latifrons wasrecovered from every trap site from everycollection date. Recovery averaged 296.8( 46.8 [SEM]) adults and unemergedpupae per kg fruit overall, showing thatthere was a well established B. latifronsfield population throughout the field trials. Recovery from the three Bioassay 1collections averaged 157.0 ( 14.8) adultsand unemerged pupae per kg fruit, whileaverage recovery for the Bioassay 2 and 3collections were 400.4 ( 22.6) and 402.8( 3.0). The average infestation rates inBioassays 2 and 3 were higher than anypreviously reported B. latifrons infestationrates in Solanum torvum (McQuate andMcQuate et al.Liquido 2013).Bactrocera dorsalis was recovered on 7of the 8 collection dates, but was found atan average of only 2.7 ( 0.7) (range: 0–5)out of 8 (Bioassays 1 and 2) or 9 (Bioassay3) trap sites. Recovery averaged 6.6 ( 2.1)adults and unemerged pupae per kg fruitoverall. Recovery from the three Bioassay1 collections averaged 7.2 ( 4.6) adultsand unemerged pupae per kg fruit, whileaverage recovery for the Bioassay 2 and3 collections were 10.4 ( 1.0) and 2.0 ( 2.0) adults and unemerged pupae per kgfruit.Bioassay 1. Over the course of the bioassay, daily temperature and % RH andweekly rainfall averaged 23.2 oC (weeklyaverage range: 22.8–23.6 oC), 83.6 %RH(weekly average range: 81.4–86.3 %RH),and 2.46 cm (weekly average range:1.3–3.2 cm), respectively. For each fruitfly species, there were significant differences in trap catches among treatments(B. latifrons [F 8.959; df 7,56; p 0.0001], B. cucurbitae [F 4.292; df 7,56; p 0.0007], B. dorsalis [F 27.473;df 7,56; p 0.0001]) (Figure 1). For B.latifrons, catch in traps baited with SolulysAST was significantly greater than catchin traps from any other treatment exceptfor traps baited with only ammoniumacetate chemical release packets. Therewere no significant differences in catchamong traps baited with torula yeast,Biolure, rainbow plug, cucumber volatileplug, or ammonium acetate, while catch intraps baited with each of these attractants,except for traps baited with the cucumbervolatile plug, was significantly greaterthan catch in either of the control traps.There was no significant difference in percentage female catch among traps baitedwith Solulys AST, torula yeast, Biolure,rainbow plug, or ammonium packet only(F 0.1221; df 4,35; p 0.9736), withaverage percentage female catch rangingfrom 52.6–59.1%. Average weekly catch
10/18/2011339988888No. 765.71756.61824.01960.0Total no. Total fruitfruitswt (g)B. latifronsB. .63.90.09.411.35.70.00315.8No. pos. % pos.Total no.No. B. latifrons No. pos. % pos.Total no.No. B. dorsaliscoll.coll. pupae adults per kg fruitcoll.coll. pupae adultsper kg 6/21/2011125/24/20111BioassaynumberDateTable 1. Tephritid fruit fly recovery from turkeyberry fruit collections made from turkeyberry patches used for trap sites in Bioassays 1, 2, and3. Collections in which tephritid fruit flies were recovered are referred to as positive (“pos.”) collections. “coll.” collectionsAssessing new lures for Bactrocera latifrons75
76McQuate et al.Figure 1. Relative average catch per trap per week ( SEM) of wild Bactrocera latifrons,B. cucurbitae, and B. dorsalis among traps baited with a range of different attractantsand in unbaited control traps. Traps serviced twice a week, with trap catches summed foreach week’s total. Fresh bait provided each week. For each fruit fly species, treatmentsrepresented by columns with the same letter at top are not statistically different at the α 0.05 level. Numbers above the letters indicating statistical significance of differencesin average trap catch report the average percentage female catch (Bioassay 1 results).in traps baited with the cucumber volatileplug, and the two control traps was too lowto permit inclusion in the test of significance of differences of percentage femalecatch among treatments.For B. dorsalis, catch in traps baitedwith torula yeast was significantly greaterthan catch in traps baited with SolulysAST, which was significantly greater thancatch in traps from any other treatment.Catch in traps from all of the other treatments was quite low by comparison tocatch in the Solulys AST and torula yeasttreatments. For B. cucurbitae, there wasno significant difference in catch amongtraps treated with Solulys AST, torulayeast, ammonium acetate, or Biolure,while catch in each of these treatmentswas significantly greater than catch intraps baited with the rainbow plug, thecucumber volatile plug or in either of thecontrol traps. Melon fly catch, overall, waslow relative to catch of the other two fruitfly species (see Figure 1).Bioassay 2. Over the course of the bioassay, daily temperature and % RH andweekly rainfall averaged 23.5 C (weeklyaverage range: 23.2–23.9 C), 84.5% RH(weekly average range: 84.2–85.9% RH),and 4.0 cm (weekly average range: 3.5–5.4cm), respectively. Throughout this trial,no melon flies or oriental fruit flies werecaught, only B. latifrons. For B. latifrons,catch of flies was low, but significantlygreater in fresh dry traps (2.12 0.55 flies/trap/week) compared to fresh wet traps
Assessing new lures for Bactrocera latifrons77Figure 2. Relative average catch per trap per week ( SEM) of wild Bactrocera latifrons among traps baited with a range of different attractants and in unbaited controltraps. Traps serviced twice a week, with trap catches summed for each week’s total.Fresh bait provided each week. Treatments represented by columns with the same letter at top are not statistically different at the α 0.05 level. Numbers above the lettersindicating statistical significance of differences in average trap catch report the averagepercentage female catch (Bioassay 3 results).(0.50 0.38 flies/trap/week) (F 6.178; df 1,14; p 0.0262). For both wet and drytraps, the average weekly catch in agedtraps was always the respective averageweekly catch in fresh traps. Although thedata series was too short to be able to testfor significance of trends in catch withincreased age of bait, the test did suggestthat catch in dry traps was not poorer thancatch in wet traps (as had been observed formelon fly [see above: catch was, actually,significantly higher in dry traps]) and thatthis was true with both fresh and aged baits.Bioassay 3. Over the course of thebioassay, daily temperature and % RH andweekly rainfall averaged 22.7 C (weeklyaverage range: 22.0–23.6 C), 85.4% RH(weekly average range: 81.8–89.5% RH),and 5.0 cm (weekly average range: 3.1–5.3cm), respectively. Based on B. latifronscatches at freshly baited traps (i.e., catchone week after traps were freshly baited–one replicate per treatment each weekover 9 weeks), there was a significant difference in trap catches among treatments(F 21.67; df 5,48; p 0.0001) (Figure2). Average catch in traps baited withalpha-ionol cade oil was significantly
78greater than catch in traps baited with anyof the other treatments tested. The secondhighest average catch was in traps baitedwith Solulys AST, with average catchsignificantly greater than in traps baitedwith Biolure or ammonium acetate or water only, but not significantly greater thancatch in traps baited with torula yeast. Percentage female catch was significantly lessin both the fresh and aged alpha-ionol cade oil treatments (0.0% for each) than inall of the other treatments (F 17.46; df 7,63; p 0.0001). There was no significantdifference in average percentage femalecatch among the other treatments, whichranged from 44.2% - 70.9% (see Figure2). The water control trap treatment wasnot included in the test for significanceof difference of percentage female catchamong treatments, because of low averageweekly catch.The best-fit exponential decay curvebased on reduction of catch at aged trapsbaited with alpha-ionol cade oil (as apercentage of the catch at freshly baitedtraps) over time was significant (F 8.98;df 1, 7; p 0.02) (see Figure 3). Basedon the best-fit equation (% of fresh catch 218.15 * e- 0.286*age [weeks]), B. latifronscatch was reduced to 50% of fresh catchin 5.2 weeks. The best fit exponential decay curves based on reduction of catch ataged traps baited with Biolure or with ammonium acetate alone (as a percentage ofthe catch at freshly baited traps) over timewere not significant (Biolure: F 2.93; df 1, 7; p 0.13) (ammonium acetate: F 0.0; df 1, 6; p 1.00), so it was notpossible to estimate the weathering timethat would reduce catch to 50% of freshlure catch. However, it was observed thatthe aged traps for both of these treatmentscontinued to catch flies through the end ofthe trial, with the catch in the aged trapsfor weeks 8 and 9 averaging 80% and104% of fresh trap catches for Biolure andammonium acetate, respectively.McQuate et al.DiscussionBecause there are few local “large”populations of B. latifrons, replicationin space was not readily possible. Usingthe alternative of replication in time hasthe risk that catch variability related tochanges in the size of field populationsover time might mask treatment-relateddifferences in trap catch. Continuedavailability of mature green turkeyberryfruits throughout the field trials (see Table1), however, helped to minimize withintreatment trap catch variation, necessaryfor the demonstration of significant differences in trap catch among treatments.The tests reported here have againshown higher B. latifrons catch in trapsbaited with alpha-ionol cade oil relativeto traps baited with protein baits. Thishad previously been reported relative tocatch in traps baited with Provesta 621(10% Provesta 621, 3% borax, and 87%water [w/w]) (McQuate and Peck 2001).Provesta 621 is an autolyzed yeast extractearlier available from Integrated Ingredients (Bartlesville, OK, USA), but is nowno longer available. Contrastingly, trapcatch in trials in Tanzania were reportedto be higher in traps baited with a proteinbait (torula yeast, purchased from Scentry,Billings, Montana, USA) relative to trapsbaited with alpha-ionol cade oil (Mziray et al. 2010). One difference betweenthe trials in Tanzania and our trials isthe method used for “knock-down” of attracted flies: use of a Vapona insecticidestrip in Tanzania versus use of a yellowsticky panel in the present studies. It maybe that the odor of the Vapona insecticidestrip used with the latilure cade oil trapsin Tanzania had a deterrent effect on flyresponse. Although, B. latifrons adults dorespond to a torula yeast–based proteinbait as used for general fruit fly detectiontrapping in California, fly response in thepresent study was found to be significantlyhigher to a Solulys AST–based protein bait.
79B. latifron
Assessing new lures for Bactrocera latifrons 69 Detection/Monitoring of Bactrocera latifrons (Diptera: Tephritidae): Assessing the Potential of Prospective New Lures Grant T. McQuate 1, Eric B. Jang, and Matthew Siderhurst2 1USDA-ARS, U.S. Pacific Basin Agricultur
telemetry 1.24 Service P threshold_migrator 2.11 Monitoring P tomcat 1.30 Monitoring P trellis 20.30 Service P udm_manager 20.30 Service P url_response 4.52 Monitoring P usage_metering 9.28 Monitoring vCloud 2.04 Monitoring P vmax 1.44 Monitoring P vmware 7.15 Monitoring P vnxe_monitor 1.03 Monitoring vplex 1.01 Monitoring P wasp 20.30 UMP P .
Rapid detection kit for canine Parvovirus Rapid detection kit for canine Coronavirus Rapid detection kit for feline Parvovirus Rapid detection kit for feline Calicivirus Rapid detection kit for feline Herpesvirus Rapid detection kit for canine Parvovirus/canine Coronavirus Rapid detection kit for
1.64 6 M10 snow/ice detection, water surface cloud detection 2.13 7 M11 snow/ice detection, water surface cloud detection 3.75 20 M12 land and water surface cloud detection (VIIRS) 3.96 21 not used land and water surface cloud detection (MODIS) 8.55 29 M14 water surface ice cloud detection
LIST OF FIGURES . Number Page . 1.1 Subsea Development USA Gulf of Mexico 5 1.2(a) Liquid Only Leak 6 1.2(b) Gas Only Leak 6 2.1 Categorization of Leak Detection Technology Used 10 in this Study 2.1.1 Leak Detection by Acoustic Emission Method 12 2.1.2 Leak Detection by Sensor Tubes 14 2.1.3 Leak Detection by Fiber Optical Sensing 17 2.1.4 Leak Detection by Soil Monitoring 19
What is Media Monitoring and How Do You Use it Monitoring: a history of tracking media What is monitoring? Getting started with monitoring The Benefits and Uses of Monitoring Using media monitoring to combat information overload Tools to maximize monitoring and measurement efforts Using media monitoring to develop media lists
Report on the IPSI Steering Committee Meeting in Kanazawa, . monitoring of the progress, and to make improvement in the landscape and livelihood. INDIA The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) held an exercise to identify potential . as an alternative to the reproduction of crab is the production of chame (Dormitator latifrons) in the rice .
-LIDAR Light detection and ranging-RADAR Radio detection and ranging-SODAR Sound detection and ranging. Basic components Emitted signal (pulsed) Radio waves, light, sound Reflection (scattering) at different distances Scattering, Fluorescence Detection of signal strength as function of time.
Scrum, Agile Software Development. with Ken Schwaber (Prentice Hall, fall 2001), a provocative book that assumes software development is more like . new product development. than the manufacturing-like processes that the software industry has used for the last 20 years. Arie van Bennekum. has been actively involved in DSDM and the DSDM Consortium since 1997. Before that he had been working .
