Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:17:02.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of a monitoring trap for the olive fly, Dacus oleae (Gmelin) (Diptera: Tephritidae), using a component of its sex pheromone as lure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

O. T. Jones ,
J. C. Lisk ,
C. Longhurst ,
P. E. Howse ,
P Ramos  and
M. Campos
O. T. Jones
Affiliation:
Chemical Entomology Unit, The University, Southampton, UK.
J. C. Lisk
Affiliation:
Chemical Entomology Unit, The University, Southampton, UK.
C. Longhurst
Affiliation:
Chemical Entomology Unit, The University, Southampton, UK.
P. E. Howse
Affiliation:
Chemical Entomology Unit, The University, Southampton, UK.
P Ramos
Affiliation:
Estaciòn Experimental del Zaidin, Granada, Spain
M. Campos
Affiliation:
Estaciòn Experimental del Zaidin, Granada, Spain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A major component of the sex pheromone of Dacus oleae (Gmel.) has recently been identified as a spiroacetal. The use of this compound as a lure for use in the development of a monitoring trap for that species is described. Polyethylene vials gave a slower release rate of the spiroacetal than rubber septa or microfibres, but even in polyethylene vials a loading in excess of 10 mg was required (optimum 20 to 25 mg) to obtain catches in delta traps which were comparable with those in unbaited vertical yellow sticky traps. In studies in an olive grove near Granada, Spain, a 25-mg spiroacetal lure used with a vertical yellow trap gave catches of males of D. oleae which were four times as great as those in delta traps with the same lure or in unbaited yellow traps. The height of the trap had no apparent effect on catch. Previously recorded components of the sex pheromone did not prove to be effective when combined with the spiroacetal. Combined monitoring of Prays oleae (Bern.) and D. oleae, using their respective pheromones in the same trap, appears to be feasible with delta traps.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 1983 , pp. 97 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

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

References

Arambourg, Y.. (1972). Quelques characteristiques biologiques de Dacus oleae Gmel. — Infs oléic. int. 57, 175–176.Google Scholar
Baker, R.Herbert, R.Howse, P. E. & Jones, O. T.. (1980). Identification and synthesis of the major sex pheromone of the olive fly (Dacus oleae). — J. chem. Soc. Chem. Commun. no. 1106, 52–53.Google Scholar
Butler, L. I. & McDonough, L. M.. (1979). Insect sex pheromones: evaporation rates of acetates from natural rubber septa.— J. Chem. Ecol. 5, 825–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirio, U.Vita, G.Gentili, P. A. & Cecchini, G.. (1979). Confronto fra cinque tipi di trappole cromotropiche per la cattura degli adulti di Dacus oleae (Gmel.) (Diptera, Trypetidae). — Publicazioni della Divisione RADéAPPL, C.N.E.N., C.S.N. Casaccia, Rome, Italy no. 583, 239–242.Google Scholar
Economopoulos, A. P.. (1977). Controlling Dacus oleae by fluorescent yellow traps. — Entomologia exp. appl. 22, 183–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economopoulos, A. P.. (1979). Attraction of Dacus oleae (Gmelin) (Diptera, Tephritidae) to odor and color traps. — Z. angew. Ent.. 88, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economopoulos, A. P.. (1980). Application of color traps for Dacus oleae control: olive groves with different degrees of isolation, tree-size, and canopy density. —pp. 552–559 in Russ, K. & Berger, H. (Eds.). Proceedings International Symposium of IOBC/ WPRS on integrated control in agriculture and forestry. Vienna, 8th-12th October 1979. — 648 pp. Vienna, Int. Org. Biol. Control Noxious Anim. Pl, W. Pal. Reg. Sect.Google Scholar
Economopoulos, A. P.Economopoulos, P.Kouis, A.Stefanakis, M.Thomopoulos, N.Tiraskis, E. & Vassilopoulos, D. (1978).Dacus oleae control with yellow traps in Trifilia. — 20 pp. Report submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture in Greece, December 1978.Google Scholar
Fletcher, B. S. & Kapatos, E.. (1981). Dispersal of the olive fly, Dacus oleae, during the summer period on Corfu. —Entomologia exp. appl. 29, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girolami, V. & Cavalloro, R.. (1973).Metodi cromotropici per indagini di popolazione degli adulti di Dacus oleae Gmelin. —Note Apunti sper. Ent. agr. 14, 13–29.Google Scholar
Hameiri, Y.. (1971). Colour traps for the trapping of the olive fly. —pp. 1–7. Report to the Israeli Ministry of Agricuture.Google Scholar
Haniotakis, G. E.. (1974). Sexual attraction in the olive fruit fly, Dacus oleae (Gmelin). — Environ. Entomol. 3, 82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haniotakis, G. E.. (1977). Male olive fly attraction to virgin females in the field. —Ann. Zool. Ecol. Anim. 9, 273–276.Google Scholar
Haniotakis, G. E.. (1980). Potential practical uses of the olive fruit fly sex attractant pheromones. —pp. 471–476 in Russ, K. & Berger, H. (Eds.). Proceedings International Symposium of IOBC/WPRS on integrated control in agriculture and forestry. Vienna 8th-12th October 1979. —648 pp. Vienna, Int. Org. Biol. Control Noxious Anim. PL, W. Pal. Reg. Sect.Google Scholar
Haniotakis, G. E.Mazomenos, B. E. & Tumlinson, J. H.. (1977). A sex attractant of the olive fruit fly, Dacus oleae and its biological activity under laboratory and field conditions. —Entomologia exp. appl. 21, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haniotakis, G. E. & Skyrianos, G.. (1981). Attraction of the olive fruit fly to pheromone, McPhail, and color traps. —J. econ. Ent. 74, 58–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, M. W.Kapatos, E.Pappas, S. & Carvounis, G.. (1977). Ecological studies on the olive fly Dacus oleae Gmel. in Corfu. 1. The yearly life cycle. —Boll. Lab. Ent. agr. Filippo Silvestri 34, 43–50.Google Scholar
Neuenschwander, P. & Michelakis, S.. (1979). McPhail trap captures of Dacus leae (Gmel.) (Diptera, Tephritidae) in comparison to the fly density and population composition as assessed by sondage technique in Crete, Greece. — Mitt. Schweiz. ent. Ges. 52, 343–357.Google Scholar
Orphanidis, P. S. & Soultanopoulos, C. D.. (1962). Some observations concerning the influence of the colour and the number of traps per tree on the captures of adult flies of Dacus oleae Gmel. —Annls Inst. phytopath. Benaki 4, 112–117.Google Scholar
Prokopy, R. J.Economopoulos, A. P. & McFadden, M. W.. (1975). Attraction of wild and labratory-cultured Dacus oleae flies to small rectangles of different hues, shades, and tints. —Entomologia exp. appl. 18, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricci, C. & Ceccarelli, S.. (1979). Adult captures of Dacus oleae Gmel. by Prokoboll traps in Umbria. —Bull. SROP 2 (1), 132–135.Google Scholar
Rossi, R.Carpita, A. & Vita, G.. (1978). (Z6–nonen–l–ol and related compounds as attrac-tants of the olive fruit fly, Dacus oleae (Gmelin) (Diptera, Trypetidae). —Gazz. chim.ital. 108, 709–712.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G.. (1967). Statistical methods. Iowa State Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Southwood, T. R. E.. (1978). Ecological methods.—2nd edn, 524 pp. London, Halsted.Google Scholar