Response of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) and peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Saund.) to some food attractants

The mean captured adults of the Mediterranean fruit fly (MFF), Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) per trap per day (CTD) in the traps containing Glan, Pro-lure 2%, Agrisense, Bioprox, Pro-lure 5%, Amadene, Buminal, Norlan and Agrinal were 11.04, 10.55, 10.22, 7.62, 6.56, 3.98, 3.16, 2.98 and 1.89, respectively. While, the effectiveness of the tested food attractants against the peach fruit fly (PFF), Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) adults comes in descending order as follows: Gla > Pro-lure 5 > Pro-lure 2% > Bioprox > Agrisense > Agrinal > Buminal > Norlan and Amadene; however, the CTDs of these preparations were 0.60, 0.60, 0.51, 0.49, 0.42, 0.22, 0.15, 0.13 and 0.13, respectively. The present results showed that, adding the pesticide, malathion to the food attractant preparations was obviously reduced the attractiveness of the lures to both MFF and PFF adults. All of the tested preparations were attracted MFF and PFF females with a significantly high numbers in comparison to males. Regression analysis illustrated that the tested food attractants exhibited high stability by the time passed, where the passed time had not any significant effect on the potentiality of the tested preparations.


INTRODUCTION
The peach fruit fly (PFF), Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Mediterranean fruit fly (MFF), Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) are the most dominant and serious pests on fruit orchards in the world.They severely attack of many fruit species such as; guava, peach, mango, citrus, apricot, fig and apple, in addition to some vegetables such as tomato, pepper and egg-plants as secondary hosts (Kapoor & Agarwal, 1982;White & Elson-Harris, 1992;El-Minshawy et al., 1999;Hashem et al., 2004 andGhanim, 2009).
The larvae of the fruit flies feed on the pulp of ripe fruits forming tunnels inside them causing a great damage and make fruits unfavorable for marketing and exportation (White andElson-Harris, 1992 andBorge &Basedow, 1997).According to Syed et al. (1970); Pena et al. (1998) and Ghanim (2009) C. capitata and B. zonata causing a considerable damage in many fruit species.
The protein hydrolyzate preparations (food attractants) were previously used as a bait in McPhail traps (Steyskal, 1977), and they captured a large number of both males and females of PFF and MFF (Anonymous, 1985 andSaafan 2005).Catches of MFF and PFF by olfactory stimulants in attractant traps can be used to monitoring their populations and for predicting the infestation level (Ghanim, 2009).In addition, the bait application technique (BAT) is a widely used technique for controlling fruit flies; deploys spots of protein bait mixed with insecticide, were attracted and killed adult fruit flies (Roessler, 1989;Amin, 2003;and Saafan, 2005).
So, the present study based on field experiments covered the following topics: • Evaluate the efficiency of some food attractants against MFF and PFF adults.• Influence of mixed the insecticide malathion on its efficacy.
• Evaluate the stability of the attractants under field conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present experiment was carried out in guava (Psidium guajava) orchard (about two feddan) located in the Experimental Farm, Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University.It was conducted during the period from the 2 nd till 14 th of September 2006.
The efficacy of the above food attractants preparations was tested against the adult flies of the peach fruit fly (PFF), Bactrocera zonata (Saunders) and Mediterranean fruit fly (MFF), Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) as follows: 1. Using all of these attractants with 5% concentration, additionally Pro-Lure was used with 2% (according to the recommended dosage of the Co.Producer).2. Using the same concentration of the tested food attractants mixed with 0.5% malathion (EC).McPhail traps (McPhail, 1937) were used by putting about 200 ml of each attractant per trap.Each treatment was replicated five times.All prepared traps were distributed in a completely randomized design.The distance between two adjacent traps was 15 meters and the traps were hanged at about 1.5 -2 meters in a shadow place of the trees.The traps were investigated every 3 days along a period of 15 days.Captured females and males of PFF and MFF were counted and recorded as CTD (capture/trap/day).
Statistical analysis was fulfilled by using one way analysis of variances (ANOVA) (CoStat, 1990), in addition to the regression analysis was done to the obtained data.

I. Efficacy of the tested food attractants: 1. C. capitata adults:
As shown in the figure (1), the obtained data indicated that MFF adults showed different degrees of preference to the different tested food attractants.Without adding pesticide, Glan, Pro-lure 2% and Agrisense attracted the highest numbers of C. capitata adults with a mean CTD of 11.04, 10.55 and 10.22 adults.Amadene (CTD = 3.98), Buminal (CTD = 3.16), Norlan (CTD = 2.98) and Agrinal (CTD = 1.89) represented another group that was significantly less preferable to MFF adults.While, Bioprox and Pro-lure 5% recorded a moderate level of attractiveness (mean CTDs were 7.62 and 6.56 adults) with insignificantly different from the two former groups.
As clearly illustrated in the figure (1), adding pesticide to the food attractant preparations obviously reduced the attractiveness of the lures to MFF adults.

B. zonata adults:
The data indicated that PFF adults showed no different degrees of preferability with different tested food attractants (Fig. , 2).Without adding pesticide, Glan, Pro-lure (5 & 2%), Bioprox and Agrisense ranked the first group in attracting PFF adults with relatively high numbers although insignificant differences (mean CTDs were 0.60, 0.60, 0.51, 0.49 and 0.42 adults, respectively).Agrinal, Buminal, Norlan and Amadene represented second rank in attracting PFF adults with mean CTD of 0.22, 0.15, 0.13 and 0.13 adults, respectively.Statistically indicated no significant differences between the former two groups.

III. Evaluate the stability of these attractants under field conditions:
To evaluate the potentiality of the tested compounds as lures for MFF and PFF against time, regression analysis had been done.Data illustrated in the figure (3) showed the regression of the attractiveness of each tested food attractants to MFF and PFF adults over 15 days in guava orchard.

Fig. (3). The relationship between the time (in days) and captured adults (CTD) of MFF (A) and PFF (B) in
McPhail traps baited with different food attractants in guava orchards at Mansoura district (bioassayed every three days all over 15 days without renewal the preparations).
Regression analysis illustrated that the attractiveness of MFF adults to the tested food attractants did not affect by the time except that of Norlan.However, the efficiency of Norlan significantly increased by the time.
The relationship between the CTD by Norlan preparation and the time [in days (D)] is described statistically as follow: CTD = -1.62 + 0.51 D With respect to B. zonata, data illustrated in the figure (3) illustrated that the potentiality of all tested preparations did not affect by the time.However, the time pass had not any significant effect on the potentiality of all tested preparations (regression coefficient values were not significantly).

DISCUSSION
The present investigation indicated that females and males of C. capitata and B. zonata show positive response to the tested food attractants (with differences in their attractiveness).Similar results were obtained by Steyskal (1977), Saafan (2005) and Ghanim (2009) who mentioned that MFF and PFF were attracted to different food attractant preparations.Also, Gopaul and Price (1999), Hanafy et al. (2001), Afia (2007) and Ghanim (2009) mentioned that lures for capturing fruit flies based on food or host odors and liquid protein baits have been used to catch a wide range of different fruit fly species (females and males).
The present results indicated that traps baited with Glan, Pro-lure, Agrisense and Bioprox lured significantly higher number of MFF and PFF adults than the other tested compounds.While, Saafan (2005), Afia (2007) and Ghanim (2009) mentioned that buminal was the main food attractant used in attracting fruit flies.The difference between their results and the present may be attributed to the variation in the tested food preparations.
Toxic sprays containing insect food attractant were previously applied to control fruit flies (Ilardo andCaracci, 1990 andAmin, 2003).However, bait application technique (BAT) deploys spots of protein bait mixed with insecticide, which attract and kill adult fruit flies (Roessler, 1989).The present results showed that adding the pesticide to the food attractant preparations reduced the attractiveness of MFF and PFF adults to these preparations.This may be attributed to the repellent effect of the tested pesticide to the tested insects.Saafan (2005), Afia (2007) and Moustafa and Ghanim (2008) mentioned that females of MFF and PFF were more attracted to food attractants than males.Also, in the present study, the females were obviously more attracted to all the tested food attractants than males.
The attractiveness of MFF and PFF to the tested food attractants did not affect by the time pass.Where, the efficiency of the tested preparations (except that of Norlan against MFF) did not affect significantly by the time.Similar conclusion was obtained by and Abd El-Kareim et al. (2008); Moustafa and Ghanim (2008) and Ghanim (2009) who mentioned that the efficiency of some ammonium compounds against PFF and MFF did not affect by the time.
Two objectives of using the attractants against fruit flies; the first one, for detecting and monitoring the adult flies (Hanafy et al., 2001;Saafan, 2005 andGhanim, 2009); the second one, using the attractants for fly control (Roessler, 1989;Permalloo et al., 1998;Amin, 2003;and Ghanim, 2009).So, the tested compounds especially Glan, Pro-lure, Agrisense and Bioprox at 5% concentration can be used in monitoring populations of fruit flies and in bait application technique (partial bait spray) as a part of integrated control of fruit flies.

Table ( 1
). Mean captured C. capitata and B. zonata females and males/trap/day (CTD) over 15 days by the tested food attractants on guava orchards at Mansoura district.