Advertisement

Oecologia

, Volume 86, Issue 2, pp 223–231 | Cite as

Sex differences in movement between natural feeding and mating sites and tradeoffs between food consumption, mating success and predator evasion in Mediterranean fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae)

  • J. Hendrichs
  • B. I. Katsoyannos
  • D. R. Papaj
  • R. J. Prokopy
Original Papers

Summary

Systematic quantitative observations of the location and diel pattern of adult Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), activities were carried out in an orange grove and surroundings on the island of Chios in Greece. Natural fly foods were assessed for their contribution to fly longevity, fecundity and fertility. There were diel shifts in male and female location. Females required a substantial and varied diet to realize peak fecundity. This diet was acquired away from the primary host, orange. Foraging for food throughout most of the day on fig and non-host foliage (including feeding on bird droppings) as well as on fig fruit and grapes, females dispersed and fed more than males. A diet of grapes alone did not support any fecundity, contributing only to longevity. A diet of figs alone, on the other hand, sustained both longevity and egg production. Bird feces alone supported neither egg production nor longevity. However, when added to a diet of figs, bird feces significantly increased fly fecundity. Throughout most of the day, males aggregated in leks within the inner canopy of the primary host, orange. The arrival here during the warmest hours of the day of receptive females, followed by pair formation, reinforced the lek mating system on host foliage. In the afternoon, females shifted to orange fruit where they suffered from high predation mortality while ovipositing. Soon after, males also shifted to orange fruit, where they attempted matings with non-receptive ovipositing females. Male feeding on fig fruit occurred late in the day, a time when they were least likely to find a mate. Male survival did not differ between the natural diets. Tradeoffs between food consumption, mating success and predator evasion are discussed for each sex and related to fruit fly mating systems.

Key words

Tephritidae Dispersal Food foraging Lek Predation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aluja M, Hendrichs J, Cabrera M (1983) Behavior and interactions between Anastrepha ludens (L) and A. obliqua (M) on a field caged mango tree. I. Lekking behavior and male territoriality. In: Cavalloro R (ed) Fruit Flies of Economic Importance. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 122–133Google Scholar
  2. Arita LH, Kaneshiro KY (1989) Sexual selection and lek behavior in the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae). Pac Sci 43:135–143Google Scholar
  3. Averill A, Prokopy RJ (1989) Host-marking pheromones. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds) Fruit Flies: their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Vol 3A. World Crop Pests. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 207–219Google Scholar
  4. Baker AC, Stone WE, Plummer CC, McPhail M (1944) A review of studies on the Mexican fruit fly and related Mexican species. U.S. Department of Agriculture Misc. Publ. 531Google Scholar
  5. Baker P (1984) Insect machismo in Central America. New Sci 1417:41Google Scholar
  6. Baker RR (1978) The evolutionary ecology of animal migration. Holmes & Meier Publ. Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker RT, Cowley JM, Harte DS, Frampton ER (1990) Development of a maximum pest limit for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in produce imported into New Zealand. J Econ Entomol 83:13–17Google Scholar
  8. Bartelt RJ, Schaner AM, Jackson LL (1986) Aggregation pheromones in five taxa of the Drosophila virilis species group. Physiol Entomol 11:367–376Google Scholar
  9. Bateman MA (1979) Dispersal and species interaction as factors in the establishment and success of tropical fruit flies in new areas. Proc Ecol Soc Aust 10:106–112Google Scholar
  10. Bateman MA, Morton TC (1981) The importance of ammonia in proteinaceous attractants of fruit flies (Tephrididae). Aust J Agric Res 32:883–903Google Scholar
  11. Beehler BM, Foster MS (1988) Hotshots, hotspots, and female preference in the organization of lek mating systems. Am Nat 131:203–219Google Scholar
  12. Bell WJ (1990) Searching behavior patterns in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 35:447–467Google Scholar
  13. Boyce AM (1934) Bionomics of the walnut huskfly Rhagoletis completa. Hilgardia 8:363–579Google Scholar
  14. Bradbury JW, Gibson R (1983) Leks and mate choice. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, pp 109–138Google Scholar
  15. Burk T (1981) Signaling and sex in acalyptrate flies. Fla Entomol 64:30–43Google Scholar
  16. Burk T (1982) Evolutionary significance of predation on sexually signalling males. Fla Entomol 65:91–104Google Scholar
  17. Burk T (1983) Behavioral ecology of mating in the Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa (Loew) (Diptera: Tepritidae). Fla Entomol 66:330–344Google Scholar
  18. Burk T, Calkins CO (1983) Medfly mating behavior and control strategies. Fla Entomol 66:3–18Google Scholar
  19. Christenson LD, Foote RH (1960) Biology of fruit flies. Annu Rev Entomol 5:171–192Google Scholar
  20. Classen W (1989) Eradication of introduced arthropod pests: theory and historical practice. Misc Publ Entomol Soc Amer 73:1–29Google Scholar
  21. Cockran DG (1985) Nitrogen excretion in cockroaches. Ann Rev Entomol 30:29–49Google Scholar
  22. Cunningham RT, Nakagawa S, Suda DY, Urago T (1978) Tephritid fruit fly trapping: liquid food baits in high and low rainfall climates. J Econ Entomol 71:762–763Google Scholar
  23. Dreistadt S (1983) Sociopolitical impact: environmental concerns. In: Symposium presented at the Entomological Society of America's Annual Meeting, December 1982. Medfly and the Aftermath. USDA-APHIS 81-60. pp 36–44Google Scholar
  24. Drew RAI (1987) Behavioral strategies of fruit flies of the genus Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae) significant in mating and host plant relationships. Bull ent Res 77:73–81Google Scholar
  25. Drew RAI, Lloyd AC (1987) Relationship of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and their bacteria to host plants. Ann Entomol Soc Amer 80:629–636Google Scholar
  26. Drew RAI, Lloyd AC (1990) The role of bacteria in the life cycle of tephritid fruit flies. In: Barbosa P, Krischik V, Jones CL (eds) Microbial Mediation of Plant Herbivore Interactions. Wiley, New York, in pressGoogle Scholar
  27. Drew RAI, Courtice AC, Teakle DS (1983) Bacteria as a natural source of food for adult fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Oecologia 60:279–284Google Scholar
  28. Fletcher BS (1989) Movements of tephritid fruit flies. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds) Fruit Flies: their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Vol 3B, World Crop Pests. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 209–219Google Scholar
  29. Galun R, Gothilf S, Blondheim S, Sharp JL, Mazor M, Lachman A (1985) Comparison of aggregation and feeding responses by normal and irradiated fruit flies, Ceratitis capitata and Anastrepha suspensa (Diptera: Tephritidae). Environ Entomol 14:726–732Google Scholar
  30. Greenwood PJ (1980) Mating systems, philopatry and dispersal in birds and mammals. Anim Behav 28:1140–1162Google Scholar
  31. Haslett JR (1989) Adult feeding by holometabolous insects: pollen and nectar as complementary nutrient sources for Rhingia campestris (Diptera: Syrphidae). Oecologia 81:361–363Google Scholar
  32. Hedström I (1988) Una sustancia natural en la captura de moscas de la fruta del genero Anastrepha Schiner (Diptera: Tephritidae). Rev Biol Trop 36:269–272Google Scholar
  33. Hendrichs J, Hendrichs MA (1990) Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in nature: location and diel pattern of feeding and other activities on fruiting and non-fruiting hosts and nonhosts. Ann Entomol Soc Am 83:632–641Google Scholar
  34. Hendrichs J, Prokopy RJ (1990) Where do apple maggot flies find food in nature? Massachusetts Fruit Notes 55:1–3Google Scholar
  35. Hendrichs J, Reyes J (1987) Reproductive behavior and post-mating female guarding in the monophagous multivoltine Dacus longistylus (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Southern Egypt. In: Economopoulos AP (ed) Fruit Flies. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 303–313Google Scholar
  36. Hendrichs J, Ortiz G, Liedo P, Schwarz A (1983) Six years of successful medfly program in Mexico and Guatemala 1977–1982. In: Cavalloro R (ed) Fruit Flies of Economic Importance. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 353–365Google Scholar
  37. Hendrichs J, Lauzon C, Cooley S, Prokopy RJ (1990) What kind of food do apple maggot flies need for survival and reproduction? Mass Fruit Notes 55:9–11Google Scholar
  38. Iwahashi O, Majima T (1986) Lek formation and male-male competition in the melon fly, Dacus cucurbitae Coquillet (Diptera: Tephritidae). Appl Entomol Zool 21:70–75Google Scholar
  39. Katsoyannos BI (1983) Captures of Ceratitis capitata and Dacus oleae flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) by McPhail and Rebell color traps suspended on oitrus, fig and olive trees on Chios, Greece. In: Cavalloro R (ed) Fruit Flies of Economic Importance. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 451–456Google Scholar
  40. Katsoyannos BI (1987a) Field responses of Mediterranean fruit flies to colored spheres suspended in fig, citrus and olive trees. In: Labeyrie V, Fabres G, Lachaise D (eds) Insects-Plants. Dr W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 167–172Google Scholar
  41. Katsoyannos BI (1987b) Effect of color properties of spheres on their attractiveness for Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) flies in the field. J Appl Entomol 104:79–85Google Scholar
  42. Katsoyannos BI, Panagiotidou K, Kechagia I (1986) Effect of color properties on the selection of oviposition site by Ceratitis capitata. Entomol Exp Appl 42:187–193Google Scholar
  43. Landolt PJ, Hendrichs J (1983) Reproductive behavior of the papaya fruit fly, Toxotrypana curvicauda Gerstaecker (Diptera: Tephritidae). Ann Entomol Soc Amer 76:413–417Google Scholar
  44. Landolt PJ, Gonzalez M, Chambers DL, Heath RR (1990) A comparison of field observations and trapping of papaya fruit flies in papaya plantings in Central America and Florida. Fla Entomol (in press)Google Scholar
  45. Malavasi A, Morgante JS, Prokopy RJ (1983) Distribution and activities of Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) flies on host and nonhost trees. Ann Entomol Soc Amer 76:286–292Google Scholar
  46. Mazor M, Gothilf S, Galun R (1987) The role of ammonia in the attraction of females of the Mediterranean fruit fly to protein hydrolysate baits. Entomol Exp Appl 43:25–29Google Scholar
  47. National Academy of Sciences (1961) Handbook of Biological Data. Spector WS (ed) National Research Council. W.B. Sanders Co., PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  48. Nation JL (1981) Sex specific glands in tephritid fruit flies of the genera Anastrepha, Ceratitis, Dacus and Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae). Int J Insect Morphol Embryol 10:121–129Google Scholar
  49. Neilson WTA, Wood FA (1966) Natural source of food of the apple maggot. J Ecol Entomol 59:997–998Google Scholar
  50. Nishida T (1980) Food system of tephritid fruit flies in Hawaii. Proc Hawaiian Entomol Soc 23:245–254Google Scholar
  51. Papaj DR, Katsoyannos BI, Hendrichs J (1989) Use of fruit wounds in oviposition by Mediterranean fruit flies. Entomol Exp Appl 52:203–209Google Scholar
  52. Price PW (1984) Insect Ecology. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  53. Prokopy RJ (1980) Mating behavior of frugivorous Tephritidae in nature. In: Koyama J (ed) Proc Symp Fruit Fly Problems. XVI Int Congr Entomol, Kyoto, Japan, pp 37–46Google Scholar
  54. Prokopy RJ, Hendrichs J (1979) Mating behavior of Ceratitis capitata on a field-caged host tree. Ann Entomol Soc Am 72:642–648Google Scholar
  55. Prokopy RJ, Bennett EW, Bush GL (1972) Mating behavior in Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae). II. Temporal organization. Can Entomol 104:97–104Google Scholar
  56. Raymond M, Robitaille JF, Lauzon P, Vaudry R (1990) Prey-dependent profitability of foraging behavior of male and female ermine, Mustela erminea. Oikos 58:323–328Google Scholar
  57. Reynolds JD, Gross MR (1990) Costs and benefits of female mate choice: is there a lek paradox? Am Nat 136:230–243Google Scholar
  58. Robacker DC, Tarshis-Moreno AM, Garcia JA, Flath RA (1990) A novel attractant for the Mexican fruit fly, Anastrepha ludens, from fermented host fruit. J Chem Ecol 16:2799–2815Google Scholar
  59. Rössler Y (1989) Insecticidal bait and cover sprays. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds) Fruit Flies: their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Vol 3B, World Crop Pests. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 329–336Google Scholar
  60. Sacantanis KB (1955) La forêt d'Arganier, le plus grand foyer de Ceratitis capitata connu au monde. Service de la Defence des Vegetaux, Marrakech, Maroc, pp 1–53 (in French)Google Scholar
  61. Schal C, Bell WJ (1982) Ecological correlates of paternal investment of urates in a tropical cockroach. Science 218:170–173Google Scholar
  62. Schaner AM, Bartelt RT, Jackson LL (1987) (Z)-11-octadecenyl acetate, an aggregation pheromone in Drosophila. J Chem Ecol 13:1777–1787Google Scholar
  63. Schwarz AJ, Liedo JP, Hendrichs J (1989) Current programme in Mexico. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds) Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Vol. 3B, World Crop Pests. Elsevier Science Publ. Co., New York, pp 375–386Google Scholar
  64. Scribner J (1983) A review of the California action program. In: Symposium presented at the Entomological Society of America's Annual Meeting, December 1982. Medfly and the Aftermath. USDA-APHIS 81-60, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  65. Sharp JL, Chambers DL (1983) Aggregation response of Anastrepha suspensa (Diptera: Tephritidae) to proteins and amino acids. Environ Entomol 12:923–928Google Scholar
  66. Shelly T, Kaneshiro KY (1991) Lek behavior of the oriental fruit fly Dacus dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Hawaii (in press)Google Scholar
  67. Southwood TRE (1962) Migration of terrestrial arthropods in relation to habitat. Biol Rev 37:171–214Google Scholar
  68. Stinner RE, Barfield CS, Stimac JL, Dohse L (1983) Dispersal and movement of insect pests. Annu Rev Entomol 28:319–335Google Scholar
  69. Teran HR (1977) Comportamiento alimentario y su correlación a la reproducción en hembras de Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) (Diptera, Trypetidae). Rev Agron NO Argent 14:17–34Google Scholar
  70. Terra WR (1990) Evolution of digestive systems of insects. Annu Rev Entomol 35:181–200Google Scholar
  71. Tsitsipis JA (1989) Nutrition: requirements. In: Robinson AS, Hooper G (eds) Fruit Flies: their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Vol 3A, World Crop Pests, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp 103–120Google Scholar
  72. Tychsen PH (1977) Mating behavior of the Queensland fruit fly, Dacus tryoni, in field cages. J Aust Entomol Soc 16:459–465Google Scholar
  73. Webster RP, Stoffolano Jr JG (1978) The influence of diet on the maturation of the reproductive system of the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh). Ann Entomol Soc Am 71:844–849Google Scholar
  74. Wilson S (1983) Foreign impacts of California medfly infestation. In: Symposium presented at the Entomological Society of America's Annual Meeting, December 1982. Medfly and the Aftermath. USDA-APHIS 81-60, pp 52–56Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Hendrichs
    • 1
  • B. I. Katsoyannos
    • 2
  • D. R. Papaj
    • 3
  • R. J. Prokopy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MassachusettsUSA
  2. 2.Department of AgricultureUniversity of ThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyAgricultural UniversityThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations