Abstract
AbstractFruit fly surveillance remains essential for international and domestic trade. The dry cuelure baited Lynfield trap has been the Australian standard since the early 1990s. Here, we tested the two versions of Biotraps against the Lynfield traps in the Riverina area of New South Wales. The Biotraps using a protein gel performed significantly better in trapping Island fly and female Queensland fruit fly. Also, Biotraps were assessed as at least equal to or superior to Lynfield traps for trapping male Queensland fruit fly. However, the number of Newman fly trapped exhibited no significant difference between the two trap types in both time periods A and B. We discuss differences in trap architecture, toxicants and lures between the two traps, along with benefits for storage and transport.
Funder
Department of Planning, Industry and Environment
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Insect Science,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference46 articles.
1. Alexander BH, Beroza M, Oda TA, Steiner LF, Miyashita DH, Mitchell WC (1962) The development of male melon fly attractants. Agric Food Chem 10:270–276
2. Bain C, Dominiak BC (2022) Evaluating a new trap design for the surveillance of Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) in southern Australia. Gen Appl Entomol 50:21–24
3. Balagawi S, Jackson K, Hamacek EL, Clarke AR (2012) Spatial and temporal foraging patterns of Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae), for protein and implications for management. Aust J Entomol 51:279–288
4. Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-63201-0
5. Cowley JM, Page FD, Nimmo PR, Cowley DR (1990) Comparison of the effectiveness of two traps for Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) and the implications for quarantine surveillance systems. Aust J Entomol 29:171–176