Journal of Insect Behavior

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 43–64 | Cite as

Feeding behavior ofRhagoletis pomonella flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Effect of initial food quantity and quality on food foraging, handling costs, and bubbling

  • J. Hendrichs
  • B. S. Fletcher
  • R. J. Prokopy


Under seminatural conditions feeding and postfeeding behaviors of individual apple maggot flies, Rhagoletis pomonella(Diptera: Tephritidae), were recorded after flies were presented with yeast hydrolysate or sucrose droplets, varying in either concentration, amount of food solute, or total droplet volume. The objectives were (a) to establish, at a constant level of previous food deprivation, food ingestion thresholds in relation to food quality and quantity and (b) to study the effect of initial food quantity and quality on food handling time and subsequent food foraging behavior. For both carbohydrate and protein substrates, fly foraging time after feeding on a tree branchlet was positively related to total amount of food solute previously encountered on a leaf surface, though largely independent of food volume or concentration. The volume and concentration of food presented, however, significantly affected food “handling” and “processing” time and therefore foraging time. In fact, total branchlet residence time was more closely linked to food handling and processing time than to foraging time. Less time was needed for uptake of liquid than dry food, the latter requiring liquification by salivary secretion and eliciting considerable intermittent cleaning of mouthparts by feeding flies. Similar to the situation in other fluid feeders, uptake time in R. pomonelladecreased with increasing dilution, although below a threshold of a 30% concentration of solute, the rate of nutrient intake decreased rapidly. When the level of dilution and total volume of food ingested were great enough, engorged flies entered extended quiescent postfeeding periods during which they extrude orally droplets of liquid crop contents (“bubbling”). After this they reinitiated feeding, followed by more bubbling and feeding bouts. Multivariate logistic regression analysis suggested that bubbling behavior is determined by liquid food volume and degree of dilution, hunger, and temperature. Although thresholds triggering bubbling decreased with increasing temperature, higher temperature by itself did not result in bubbling behavior. This suggests that bubbling is not primarily a mechanism to achieve evaporative cooling as has been suggested but, rather, a behavior to eliminate excess water, thereby enabling engorged flies to continue feeding on diluted food sources.

Key words

Tephritidae food foraging quiescence regurgitation evaporative cooling water load 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aluja, M., Cabrera, M., Guillen, J., Celedonio, H., and Ayora, F. (1989). Behavior ofAnastrepha ludens, A. obliqua andA. serpentina (Diptera: Tephritidae) on a wild mango tree (Mangifera indica) harbouring three McPhail traps.Insect Sci. Appl. 10: 309–318.Google Scholar
  2. Barton Browne, L. (1964). Water regulation in insects.Anna. Rev. Entomol. 9: 63–82.Google Scholar
  3. Barton Browne, L., and Dudzinski, A. (1968). Some changes resulting from water deprivation in the blowfly,Lucilia cuprina.J. Insect Physiol. 14: 1423–1434.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, M. A. (1972). The ecology of fruit flies.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 17: 493–518.Google Scholar
  5. Bell, W. J. (1985). Sources of information controlling motor patterns in arthropod local search orientation.J. Insect Physiol. 31: 837–847.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, W. J. (1990). Searching behavior patterns in insects.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 35: 447–467.Google Scholar
  7. Belzer, W. R. (1970).The Control of Protein Ingestion in the Black Blowfly, Phormia regina (Meigen), Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  8. Bertsch, A. (1984). Foraging in male bumblebees (Bombus locomm L.): Maximizing energy or minimizing water load?Oecologia 62: 325–336.Google Scholar
  9. Cartar, R. V., and Dill, L. M. (1990). Colony energy requirements affect the foraging currency of bumble bees.Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 27: 377–383.Google Scholar
  10. Cresswell, J. E. (1990). How and why do nectar-foraging bumblebees initiate movements between inflorescences of wild bergamotMonarda fistulosa (Lamiaceae)?Oecologia 82: 450–460.Google Scholar
  11. Dethier, V. G. (1957). Communication by insects: physiology of dancing.Science 125: 331–336.Google Scholar
  12. Dethier, V. G. (1961). Behavioral aspects of protein ingestion by the blowfly,Phormia regina Meigen.Biol. Bull. 121: 456–470.Google Scholar
  13. Dethier, V. G. (1976).The Hungry Fly. A Physiological Study of the Behavior Associated with Feeding, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Downes, W. L., and Dahlem, G. A. (1987). The role of Homoptera in the evolution of Diptera.Environ. Entomol. 16: 847–854.Google Scholar
  15. Drew, R. A. I., and Lloyd, A. C. (1987). Relationships of fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) and their bacteria to host plants.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 80: 629–636.Google Scholar
  16. Evans, D. R., and Barton Browne, L. (1960). Physiology of hunger in the blowfly.Am. Midland Nat. 64: 282–300.Google Scholar
  17. Fromm, J. E. (1988).Search Behavior of the Housefly, Musca domestica, Ph.D. thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence.Google Scholar
  18. Gelperin, A. (1972). Neural control systems underlying insect feeding behavior.Am. Zool. 12: 489–496.Google Scholar
  19. Green, G. W. (1964a). The control of spontaneous locomotor activity patterns inPhormia regina Meigen. I. Locomotor activity patterns of intact flies.J. Insect Physiol. 10: 711–726.Google Scholar
  20. Green, G. W. (1964b). The control of spontaneous locomotor activity patterns inPhormia regina Meigen. II. Experiments to determine the mechanisms involved.J. Insect Physiol. 10: 727–752.Google Scholar
  21. Headrick, D. H., and Goeden, R. D. (1991). Life history ofTrupanea californica Malloch (Diptera: Tephritidae) onGnaphalium spp. in Southern California.Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 93: 559–570.Google Scholar
  22. Heinrich, B. (1991). Nutcracker sweets.Nat. Hist. 91(2): 4–8.Google Scholar
  23. Hendrichs, J. (1986).Sexual Selection in Wild and Sterile Caribbean Fruit Flies Anastrepha suspensaLoew, M.Sc. thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville.Google Scholar
  24. Hendrichs, J., and Hendrichs, M. A. (1990). Mediterranean fruit fly,Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in nature: Location and diel pattern of feeding and other activities on fruiting and nonfruiting hosts and nonhosts.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 83: 632–641.Google Scholar
  25. Hendrichs, J., and Prokopy, R. J. (1990). Where do apple maggot flies find food in nature?Mass. Fruit Notes 55(3): 1–3.Google Scholar
  26. Hendrichs, J., Cooley, S., and Prokopy, R. J. (1990a). How often do apple maggot flies need to eat?Mass. Fruit Notes 55(3): 12–13.Google Scholar
  27. Hendrichs, J., Lauzon, C., Cooley, S., and Prokopy, R. J. (1990b). What kinds of food do apple maggot flies need for survival and reproduction?Mass. Fruit Notes 55(3): 9–11.Google Scholar
  28. Hendrichs, J., Katsoyannos, B. I., Papaj, D. R., and Prokopy, R. J. (1991). 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).Oecologia 86: 223–231.Google Scholar
  29. Hendrichs, J., Cooley, S., and Prokopy, R. J. (1992a). Post-feeding bubbling behavior in fluid-feeding Diptera: Concentration of crop contents by oral evaporation of excess water.Physiol. Entomol. 17: 153–161.Google Scholar
  30. Hendrichs, J., Cooley, S., and Prokopy, R. J. (1992b). Uptake of plant surface leachates by apple maggot flies. In Aluja, M., and Liedo, J. P. (eds.),Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  31. Heynemann, A. J. (1983). Optimal sugar concentrations of floral nectars—dependence on sugar intake efficiency and foraging costs.Oecologia 60: 198–213.Google Scholar
  32. Hoagland, D. R., and Arnon, D. I. (1950). The water culture method for growing plants without soil. California Agricultural Experiment Station Circular No. 347, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  33. Hosmer, D. W., and Lemeshow, S. (1989).Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Krebs, J. R., and Davies, N. B. (1984).Behavioral Ecology: An Evolutionary Approach, 2nd ed., Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
  35. Lima, S. L. (1985). Maximizing feeding efficiency and minimizing time exposed to predators: a trade-off in the black-capped chickadee.Oecologia 66: 60–67.Google Scholar
  36. May, P. G. (1985). Nectar uptake rates and optimal nectar concentrations of two butterfly species.Oecologia 66: 381–386.Google Scholar
  37. Mitchell, R. J., and Paton, D. C. (1990). Effects of nectar volume and concentration on sugar intake rates of Australian honeyeaters (Meliphagidae).Oecologia 83: 238–246.Google Scholar
  38. Pivnick, K. A., and McNeil, J. N. (1985). Effects of nectar concentration on butterfly feeding: measured feeding rates forThymelicus lineola (Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae) and a general feeding model for adult Lepidoptera.Oecologia 66: 226–237.Google Scholar
  39. Prokopy, R. J. (1976). Feeding, mating and oviposition activities ofRhagoletis fausta flies in nature.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 69: 899–904.Google Scholar
  40. Prokopy, R. J., and Roitberg, R. D. (1989). Fruit fly foraging behavior. In Robinson, A. S., and Hooper, G. H. (eds.),Fruit Flies, Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, pp. 293–306.Google Scholar
  41. Propkopy, R. J., Bennett, E. W., and Bush, G. L. (1972). Mating behavior inRhagoletis pomonella. II. Temporal organization.Can. Entomol. 104: 97–104.Google Scholar
  42. Southwick, E. E., and Pimentel, D. (1981). Energy efficiency of honey production by bees.Bio Science 31: 730–732.Google Scholar
  43. Stephens, D. W., and Krebs, J. R. (1986).Foraging Theory, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
  44. Strangways-Dixon, J. (1961). The relationship between nutrition, hormones, and reproduction in the blowfly,Calliphora erythrocephala (Meigen). I. Selective feeding in relation to the reproductive cycle, the corpus allatum volume and fertilization.J. Exp. Biol. 38: 225–235.Google Scholar
  45. Thomas, D. B. (1991). Time-activity budget of adult screwworm behavior (Diptera: Calliphoridae).J. Med. Entomol. 28: 372–377.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tortrici, C., and Bell, W. J. (1988). Search orientation in adultDrosophila melanogaster: Responses of rovers and sitters to resource dispersion in a food patch.J. Insect Behav. 1: 209–223.Google Scholar
  47. Tzanakakis, M. E., Tsitsipis, J. A., and Steiner, L. F. (1967). Egg production of olive fruit fly fed solids or liquids containing protein hydrolysate.J. Econ. Entomol. 60: 352–354.Google Scholar
  48. Waller, G. D. (1972). Evaluating responses of honey bees to sugar solutions using an artificial flower feeder.Ann. Entomol. Soc. 65: 857–862.Google Scholar
  49. Webster, R. P., and Stoffolano, J. G., Jr. (1978). Influence of diet on the maturation of the reproductive system of the apple maggot,Rhagoletis pomonella.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 71: 844–849.Google Scholar
  50. Webster, R. P., Stoffolano, J. G., Jr., and Prokopy, R. J. (1979). Long-term intake of protein and sucrose in relation to reproductive behavior of wild and laboratory culturedRhagoletis pomonella.Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 72: 41–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Hendrichs
    • 1
  • B. S. Fletcher
    • 2
  • R. J. Prokopy
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MassachusettsAmherst
  2. 2.Division of EntomologyCSIROCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Entomology UnitIAEA LaboratoriesSeibersdorfAustria

Personalised recommendations