Fruit Flies of Economic Importance: From Basic to Applied Knowledge Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance 10-15 September 2006, Salvador, Brazil pp. 207-225 Update of Host Plant List of Anastrepha fraterculus and Ceratitis capitata in Argentina Luis E. Oroño, Patricia Albornoz-Medina, Segundo Núñez-Campero, Guido A. Van Nieuwenhove, Laura P. Bezdjian, Cristina B. Martin, Pablo Schliserman & Sergio M. Ovruski Planta Piloto de Procesos Industriales Microbiológicos y Biotecnología - CONICET, División Control Biológico de Plagas, Avda. Belgrano y Pje. Caseros s/nº, (T4001MVB) San Miguel de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina. ABSTRACT: The study displays a complete picture of the host range of the two economically important fruit fly species in Argentina, the nativeAnas- trepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) (South American Fruit Fly) and the exotic Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Mediterranean Fruit Fly or Medfly). This work provides information on the fruit type of each plant species, associated tephritid species, habitat where the fruit was collected, geographical location of each fruit collection area (latitude, longitude, and altitude), phytogeographic regions where each area is located, as well as a general description of the landscape characteristics of those habitats where the fruit samples with fly larvae were collected. A complete, detailed bibliographic review was made in order to provide all the relevant information needed for host use in natural setting. Key Words: Medfly, South American fruit fly, ecology, habitats, fruit trees INTRODUCTION many countries. The number of host plants cited for A. fraterculus is approximately 80 Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann) (South species (Norrbom 2004), whereas for C. capi- American Fruit Fly) and Ceratitis capitata tata the number is higher than 300 species in (Wiedemann) (Mediterranean Fruit Fly or the world (Liquido et al. 1991; Copeland et al. Medfly) are the only two economically im- 2002). Regarding Argentina, several regional portant fruit fly species found in Argentina lists of known or potential host plants for C. (Aruani et al. 1996). Ceratitis capitata was in- capitata and A. fraterculus have been made, troduced to Argentina probably via Buenos primarily to meet the needs of quarantine Aires or through natural dispersal from Brazil personnel in the fruit-growing regions (Rust (Ovruski et al. 2003). Both fly species are seri- 1916, 1918; Ogloblin 1937; Hayward 1942, ous pests of a wide range of commercial fruit 1944, 1960; Aczél 1949; Vergani 1952; Turica crops, and severely limit the export of fruit and Mallo 1960, 1961; Blanchard 1961; Ceruso due to quarantine restrictions (Aruani et al 1967; Turica et al. 1971, Nasca et al. 1981, 1996; 1996). Medfly is widely distributed through- Putruele 1996; Vaccaro 2000; Ovruski 2004a, out Argentina, whereas the native A. frater- 2004b). However, several of those reports did culus is mainly restricted to NW Argentina not follow standard procedures to ascertain (Tucumán, Salta, Jujuy, Catamarca), NE Argen- host plant status unequivocally. According tina (Misiones, Corrientes, Entre Ríos) and in to Norrbom and Kim (1988) and Aluja (1999), fruit cultivation areas of La Rioja, San Juan a host record should only be validated if the and Buenos Aires. In all these provinces A. plant and fly species was identified by an ex- fraterculus and C. capitata apparently coexist pert taxonomist (the author cites the name in wild and commercially grown, native and and affiliation of the person performing the exotic fruits. identification), if the infestation occurred un- Both tephritids are polyphagous species der natural conditions (i.e., field), and if host that attack several families of fruit species in records were also accompanied by informa- Corresponding author: Luis E. Oroño tion on levels of infestation (i.e., larvae per ([email protected]) fruit or kg of fruit), fruiting phenology and Book Fruit Flies.indb 207 28/10/2008 08:27:32 208 From Basic to Applied Knowledge A. fraterculus and C. capitata host plants in Argentina accurate information on cultivar type. More- which, in turn, is at the end of the respective over, some C. capitata/A. fraterculus host plant article in the cited literature. The second step data cited in Lahille (1915), Domato and Ara- was to make a list of the reference locations mayo (1947), Ratkovich and Nasca (1953), according to Argentinean region and prov- Rosillo (1953), Costilla (1967), Nasca (1970), ince. This table also indicates the geographi- Nasca et al. (1978), Manero et al. (1989), and cal coordinates of each fruit collection area Vattuone et al. (1999) are based on adult (latitude, longitude, and altitude) and the flies captured in traps placed in trees rather phytogeographic regions where each area is than fruit infestation. In the most recent and located. A third table includes a general de- complete studies on ecology of C. capitata/A. scription of the landscape characteristics of fraterculus, such as the articles published by those habitats where the fruit samples with Ovruski (2002), Ovruski et al. (2003, 2004), fly larvae were collected. The data in Table 1 Schliserman and Ovruski (2004), and Oroño are complemented by the information in Ta- et al. (2005) for NW Argentina, Segura et al. bles 2 and 3. (2004) for central east Argentina, and Segura In the making of the three tables, only those et al. (2006) for different Argentinean ecolog- bibliographic cites on fruit infested with lar- ical regions, host plants are only included on vae from one or both tephritid species were the basis of field infestation data. considered. The data from adult specimens As part of a larger project on patterns of captured in liquid traps placed on a possible host utilization by frugivorous Tephritidae in host plant were ignored. Those host plants NW Argentina, the aim of this study is to draw unidentified on a species level which were a more complete picture of the host range of named simply as “sp” (e.g. Citrus sp) were also the two economically important fruit fly spe- omitted. The present article honors Norrbom cies in Argentina. A complete, detailed biblio- y Kim’s (1988) and Aluja’s (1999) concept of graphic review was made in order to provide host plant, which states that a plant is only all the relevant information needed for host a natural host plant to a given tephritid spe- use in natural setting. cies if the fruit or some of its tissue allows the larva to complete development, and the emergence of a healthy adult in nature. MATERIAL AND METHODS In order to collect information on host plants RESULTS to C. capitata and/or A. fraterculus registered in Argentina and for the areas where the col- All information available on C. capitata/A. lections were carried out, a thorough analysis fraterculus host plants obtained from bib- on all the data available in specialized litera- liographic review is summarised in Table 1. ture was made. Once the information was Altogether, 51 fruit species belonging to 19 gathered, the first step was to make a list of botanical families were considered as host species of valid host plants, which were put in plants. From all botanical families cited for alphabetical order according to the taxonom- Argentina in Table 1, only eight have native ic family to which they belonged. This list also fruit species (Cactaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Fa- displays information on the fruit type of each baceace, Juglandaceae, Myrtaceae, Olacace- plant species, associated tephritid species, ae, Palmaceae, and Sapotaceae). The most habitat where the fruit was collected, as well commonly infested families were species as bibliographic references. The latter are in- represented by Rosaceae (21.6% of the total dicated by an Arabic number in parentheses, number of families), Rutaceae (17.7%), Myrta- Book Fruit Flies.indb 208 28/10/2008 08:27:32 209 From Basic to Applied Knowledge A. fraterculus and C. capitata host plants in Argentina ceae and Solanaceae (13.7%). Of the 18 plant or A. fraterculus (Table 2). Tucumán, Salta, and families from which C. capitata was recovered Buenos Aires represented 29.8%, 13.2%, and (95% of the total botanical families recorded 9.6%, respectively, of the all localities where in the literature) (Table 1), only five (26%) infested fruit were collected. Only these three were associated with Medfly (Actinidiaceae, provinces together represented 52.6% of the Cactaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Olacaceae, Pal- 114 localities sampled in Argentina. Fruit in- maceae). Anastrepha fraterculus was present fested by C. capitata larvae were collected in in 14 plant families (73%) (Table 1), and from all habitats characterized in Table 3, ranging one (5%) family (Fabaceae) only this tephritid from rainforest to xeric scrub (Table 1). Fruit fly was recovered. Of the total host plant spe- infested by A. fraterculus lavae were collected cies listed in Table 1, 29 (57%) were recorded in habitats such as rainforests, rural and ur- for both C. capitata and A. fraterculus, 18 (35%) ban garden, commercial and experimental only for C. capitata, and 4 (8%) only for A. fra- fruit orchards (Table 1). Fruit samples were terculus. In those plant families with more most commonly collected from rural gar- than three fruit species recorded as host and dens (RG) during fruit fly surveys, represent- in which only one fruit fly species was recov- ing 67.1% of all collections recorded in Table ered from a host, C. capitata was dominant in 1, while commercial fruit orchards (CO) and Solanaceae (86% of the total host species), urban gardens (UG) represented 11.1% and Rutaceae (44%), and Rosaceace (18%), while 7.6%, respectively. Natural habitats, such as A. fraterculus was only dominant in Myrtace- Yungas and Paranaense secondary forests, ae (30%) (Table 1). and dry scrub, only represented 7.3%, 2.8%, A total of 114 localities of Argentina were re- and 0.6%, respectively.