Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:02:19.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

MATING BEHAVIOR OF RHAGOLETIS POMONELLA (DIPTERA: TEPHRITIDAE): IV. COURTSHIP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

Ronald J. Prokopy
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Texas at Austin
Guy L. Bush
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Texas at Austin

Abstract

The results of systematically-conducted, mid- to late-season observations and experiments on large populations of apple maggot flies, Rhagoletis pomonella (Walsh), in apple and sour cherry trees revealed the following sequences in courtship behavior. When environmental conditions are favorable, sexually mature males and females fly to the host fruit, the site of assembly for mating and the site of oviposition. Either sex may initiate the flight which takes it to the particular fruit occupied by a member of the opposite sex. Such flights by males are often in response to the visual stimulus of a female (or male) moving about on a fruit, while such flights by females seem to be primarily in response to the fruit as a potential oviposition site. Once on the same fruit, a male and a female locate one another apparently solely through vision, particularly movement. They walk to within 1–3 cm of one another, but there is no tactile contact until such time as the male attempts copulation by jumping onto the back of the female from this distance.

The position from which the copulatory jump is made is variable. Sometimes it is made from a face to face position, with one or both flies having waved its pictured wings at the other. Occasionally it is made from the side or from a flight from a nearby fruit directly onto a female’s abdomen. Most often however, it is made when a male is stimulated by the forward movement of a female, approaches her from the rear, and jumps onto her abdomen from the rear without the female having seen the male. Most copulation attempts, and especially most successful attempts, are initiated while the female is engaged in some phase of oviposition behavior. Males attempt copulation with other males just as often as with females, strongly suggesting that at least up until the time of tactile contact, males are unable to distinguish between the sexes. The fact that a number of male and female apple maggot flies was observed in copula with R. fausta flies in sour cherry trees suggests that neither sex may be able to discriminate too well between members of its own species and members of other species whose wing and body patterns are similar in appearance However males were usually, although not always, able to distinguish stable flies from apple maggot flies prior to tactile contact.

We discuss the known and possible roles of various visual, chemical acoustical, and physical-tactile cues involved in the courtship behavior and suggest that the most important factor insuring reproductive isolation in apple maggot flies at the pre-copulatory stage may be the selection of the proper host plant for oviposition and hence for assembly for mating.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1973

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

Biggs, J. D. 1972. Aggressive behavior in the adult apple maggot (Diptera: Tephritidae). Can. Ent. 104: 349353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyce, A. M. 1934. Bionomics of the walnut husk fly, Rhagoletis completa. Hilgardia 8: 363579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, F. E. 1921. Walnut husk maggot. U.S. Dep. Agric. Bull. 992. pp. 18.Google Scholar
Bush, G. L. 1966. The taxonomy, cytology, and evolution of the genus Rhagoletis in North America (Diptera, Tephritidae). Bull. Harvard Mus. Comp. Zool. 134: 431562.Google Scholar
Bush, G. L. 1969 a. Sympatric host race formation and speciation in frugivorous flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera, Tephritidae). Evolution 23: 237251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bush, G. L. 1969 b. Mating behavior, host specificity, and the ecological significance of sibling species in frugivorous flies of the genus Rhagoletis (Diptera-Tephritidae). Am. Nat. 103: 669672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economopoulos, A. P., Giannakakis, A., Tzanakakis, M. E., and Voyadjoglou, A. V.. 1971. Reproductive behavior and physiology of the olive fruit fly. I. Anatomy of the adult rectum and odors emitted by adults. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 64: 11121116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féron, M. 1962. L'instinct de reproduction chez la mouche méditerranéean des fruits Ceratitis capitata Wied. (Dipt. Trypetidae). Comportement sexuel. Comportement de ponte. Rev. Path. veg. Ent. agric. Fr. 41: 1129.Google Scholar
Fletcher, B. S. 1968. Storage and release of a sex pheromone by the Queensland fruit fly, Dacus tryoni (Diptera: Trypetidae). Nature 219: 631632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gee, J. H. 1969. Effect of daily synchronization of sexual activity on mating success in laboratory populations of two species of Dacus (Diptera: Tephritidae). Aust. J. Zool. 17: 619624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haseler, W. H. 1965. Life-history and behavior of the Crofton weed gall fly Procecidochares utilis Stone (Diptera: Trypetidae). J. ent. Soc. Queensland 4: 2732.Google Scholar
Holbrook, F. R., Steiner, L. F., and Fujimoto, M. S.. 1970. Mating competitiveness of Mediterranean fruit flies marked with fluorescent powders. J. econ. Ent. 63: 454455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illingworth, J. F. 1912. A study of the biology of the apple maggot (Rhagoletis pomonella), together with an investigation of methods of control. Bull. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn 324. pp. 129183.Google Scholar
Monteith, L. G. 1972. Status of predators of the adult apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae), in Ontario. Can. Ent. 104: 257262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, K. 1952. Oviposition and mating behavior of the Queensland fruit-fly [Dacus (Strumeta) tryoni (Frogg.)] and the solanum fruit-fly [Dacus (Strumeta) cacuminatus (Hering)]. Austr. J. scient. Res. (B) 5: 264281.Google ScholarPubMed
Nation, J. L. 1972. Courtship behavior and evidence for a sex attractant in the male Caribbean fruit fly, Anastrepha suspensa. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 13641367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, W. T. A. and McAllan, J. W.. 1965. Effects of mating on fecundity of the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pormonella (Walsh). Can. Ent. 97: 276279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, B. A. 1928. The apple maggot. Tech. Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric., No. 66. pp. 148.Google Scholar
Pritchard, G. 1967. Laboratory observations on the mating behavior of the island fruit fly Rioxa pornia (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Aust. ent. Soc. 6: 127132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. 1968. Visual responses of apple maggot flies, Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae): Orchard studies. Entomologia exp. appl. 11: 403422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J., Bennett, E. W., and Bush, G. L.. 1971. Mating behavior in Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae). I. Site of assembly. Can. Ent. 103: 14051409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J., 1972. Mating behavior in Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae). II. Temporal organization. Can. Ent. 104: 97104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. and Boller, E. F.. 1970. Artificial egging system for the European cherry fruit fly. J. econ. Ent. 63: 14131417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. and Bush, G. L.. 1972. Mating behavior in Rhagoletis pomonella. III. Male aggregation in response to an arrestant. Can. Ent. 104: 275283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokopy, R. J. and Bush, G. L.. 1973. Oviposition by grouped and isolated apple maggot flies. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. (In press).Google Scholar
Shervis, L. J., Boush, G. M., and Koval, C. F.. 1970. Infestation of sour cherries by apple maggot: Confirmation of a previously uncertain host status. J. econ. Ent. 63: 294295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoltzfus, W. B. and Foote, B. A.. 1965. The use of froth masses in courtship of Eutreta (Diptera: Tephritidae). Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 67: 263264.Google Scholar
Tauber, M. J. and Tauber, C. A.. 1967. Reproductive behavior and biology of the gall-former Aciurina ferruginea (Doane) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Can. J. Zool. 45: 907913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tauber, M. J. and Toschi, C. A.. 1965. Bionomics of Euleia fratria (Loew) (Diptera: Tephritidae). I. Life history and mating behavior. Can. J. Zool. 43: 369379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tychsen, P. H. 1972 (unpub.). Mating behavior and the control of sexual responsiveness in the Queensland fruit fly By Dacus tryoni (Frogg.). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sydney, Australia.Google Scholar
Uhler, L. D. 1951. Biology and ecology of the goldenrod gall fly, Eurosta solidaginis (Fitch). Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn Mem. 300. pp. 151.Google Scholar
Zwölfer, H. 1972. Investigations on Chaetorellia spp. associated with C. solstitialis. Comm. Inst. biol Cont. Weed Project Rep. 7. pp. 121.Google Scholar
Zwölfer, H., Englert, W., and Pattullo, W.. 1970. Investigations on the biology, population ecology and the distribution of Urophora cardui L. Comm. Inst. biol. Cont. Prog. Rep. 27. pp. 127.Google Scholar