835 Vol.55, n. 6: pp.835-842, November-December 2012 BRAZILIAN ARCHIVES OF ISSN 1516-8913 Printed in Brazil BIOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL The Host Marking Pheromone Application on the Management of Fruit Flies - A Review Márcio Alves Silva 1,2 * Gerane Celly Dias Bezerra-Silva 2and Thiago Mastrangelo 3 1Universidade Estadual do Piauí; 64860-000; Uruçuí - PI - Brasil. 2Departamento de Entomologia e Acarologia; Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz; Universidade de São Paulo; CP:. 9; 13418-900; Piracicaba - SP - Brasil. 3Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura; Universidade de São Paulo; CP:. 96, 13400-970; Piracicaba – SP - Brasil ABSTRACT The aim of this work was to review the role of the host marking pheromone (HMP) and its application in integrated management programs for the fruit flies. Initially the oviposition behavior of tephritids has been analyzed with emphasis on Ceratitis capitata . The deposition of HMP, which consists in the last stage of the oviposition behavior has been characterized and discussed about evolutive aspects and the biological meaning of the tephritidae communication through the HMP. Finally, the perspectives on the use of HMP in the integrated management of fruit flies have been discussed. Key words: Oviposition behavior, host marking pheromone, oviposition deterring pheromone, IPM, fruit flies INTRODUCTION of “decisions”, which are taken as they cumulate information about the potential host (Prokopy and The fruit flies (FF) belong to the Diptera order Roitberg 1989; Fletcher and Prokopy 1991; Díaz- (which has later wings transformed in halteres), Fleischer et al. 2000; Sugayama and Malavasi, Brachycera suborder (with short antenna, usually 2000). The oviposition behavior has been studied with three segments), Schizophora series (with in several fruit flies species and for the Ceratitis ptilinal fissure), Acalyptratae section (without capitata (Wied.), medfly, it happens in four steps: calyptras) and Tephritidae family (with subcostal arriving the fruit, searching, puncture and drawing nervure turned in angle) (Zucchi 2000). In (Prokopy and Roitberg 1989; Fletcher and Tephritidae family, 4,448 species and subspecies Prokopy 1991). When the female arrives on the are known and organized in 484 genera (Norrbom fruit, she uses, at short distance, visual stimuli and 2008). The genera represented by the species of appraises the fruit about its size, color and shape economic importance are classified in the (Prokopy and Roitberg 1984). The female surveys subfamily Trypetinae, Toxotrypanini tribe all the surface of the fruit during the searching, (Anastrepha and Toxotrypana ) and Carpomyinae touching it with the anterior part of the head, the tribe ( Rhagoletis ) in Dacinae subfamily, labelo and the 7 th sintergosternito (ovipositor). In Ceratitidini tribe ( Ceratitis ) and Dacini tribe that step, she analyses the physical (size and (Bactrocera and Dacus ) (Norrbom 2008). After shape) and chemical properties of the fruit mating on the host plant, fruit flies females show a (Prokopy and Roitberg 1989; Fletcher and sequence of behaviors that are interpreted in terms Prokopy 1991; Yuval and Hendrichs 2000; Díaz- *Author for correspondence: [email protected] Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. v.55 n.6: pp. 835-842, Nov/Dec 2012 836 Silva, M. A. et al. Fleischer et al. 2000). The female inserts its oviposition. For that species, however, it was aculeus in the fruit pulp, keeping her ovipositor in proved that the marking occurred after oviposition a perpendicular position to the surface (Yuval and (Katsoyannos 1975). A decade later, Hafliger Hendrichs 2000; Díaz-Fleischer et al. 2000). The (1953) was the first to speculate the biological female does not lay eggs obligatory but, in some meaning of the drawing of the ovipositor. He got cases, she removes the aculeus making only the impressed by the fact that rarely more than one puncture (Barros 1986). At last, in the drawing egg of R. cerasi per fruit was found. The author step, the female surveys again the fruit surface, but speculated that the uniformity on the eggs with the aculeus protract. At this point, she lays a dispersion of R. cerasi used to occur due to a fruit pheromone, the host marking pheromone (HMP) marking procedure when the female drew the (Prokopy et al. 1978). The behavior of marking the ovipositor on the surface of the host. Bush (1966) host is an evident and well-studied aspect of the reported that when Rhagoletis species infested oviposition behavior of many tephritids, especially small fruits, more than one larva per fruit was in the species that attack the fruits. In this review, rarely found. This author agreed with Hafliger and the host marking pheromone of fruit flies is suggested that multiple ovipositions were inhibited discussed and some perspectives of its use in by the deposition of the pheromone after integrated management of fruit flies are suggested. oviposition. Experimentally, Prokopy (1972) was the first to demonstrate that fruit flies let a host marking pheromone during the draw of the HOST MARKING BEHAVIOR ovipositor just after the oviposition. The action of marking the oviposition site has Finding a host that is nutritionally suitable and been reported for 23 frugivorous species of the without the presence of competitor organisms genus Anastrepha , Ceratitis and Rhagoletis (Table requires a sophisticated mechanism of detection of 1). On the other hand, the non-host marking has the environmental signals, such as visual, soundly, been reported in Toxotrypana curvicaudata tactile and smelly signals (Chapmann 1998; Dicke Gerstaecker, which is reported to be a species 2000). The oviposition behavior of herbivorous close to Anastrepha . Considering now the insects is often modified by the presence of Bactrocera genus, the drawing of the aculeus conspecifics (eggs and or larvae). Typically, without deposition of HMP has been reported in females avoid laying eggs in the resources already Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) (Prokopy and explored (Nufio and Papaj 2001). The variation in Koyama 1982), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) the compounds released by the plant related to the (Prokopy et al. 1989) and Bactrocera tryoni damage provoked by the oviposition or by the (Froggatt) and Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon) (Fitt tissues destroyed by the immature or adults 1984). represent important tools for the intraspecific and Individuals of the Rhagoletis genus that belongs to interspecific recognition (Dicke 2000; Nufio and a group of species that became specialists in small Papaj 2001). However, the fruit flies lay their eggs hosts (e.g., groups of alternata, indifferens and inside the plant structures, provoking a small pomonella ) tend to pledge the host marking visible damage. No evidences of variability in the behavior (Prokopy and Papaj 2000). By contrast, emission of volatiles when the plant is infested flies of the suavis group were observed marking only with the fly eggs are known. In this case, occasionally (Círio 1972; Papaj 1994). Not during the embryonic stage of the plague, surprisely, members of the suavis group often lay additional evidences of conspecific presence are eggs on already infested fruits (Lalonde and necessary to the exploitation of a particular Mangel 1994; Papaj 1993; 1994). There are two resource, what suggests the host marking as such possible explanations for the inconsistence on host evidence. Competition for tephritids is the key marking in the group of suavis species. The first is ecological factor for the evolution of the host related to the host, all the members of the suavis marking pheromone (Díaz-Fleischer et al. 2000). group infest the nuts ( Juglans spp.), a host not Porter (1928) was the first scientist to describe used by other flies of that genus in the North precisely this behavior, observing Rhagoletis America (Prokopy and Papaj 2000). The nuts are pomonella (Walsh). Later, Wiesmann (1937) large, allowing abundant food for the larvae and reported a similar behavior for Rhagoletis cerasi reducing larval competition (Prokopy and Papaj (Linnaeus), suggesting a host marking before the 2000) and the concern to the success of the Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. v.55 n.6: pp. 835-842, Nov/Dec 2012 The Host Marking Pheromone Application on the Management of Fruit Flies - A Review 837 offspring. The second explanation is about the this mark. It is possible that the host marking by occurrence of host marking behavior by the male. the males replaces the mark of the own females, Papaj et al. (1996) found that the males of leading to a loss or reduction in female marks. Rhagoletis boycei Cresson usually touched the Male marks have been reported for two members host fruit, leaving on it a viscous substance and the of the suavis group, R. boycei and Rhagoletis females preferred to oviposite in the fruits without suavis (Loew) (Díaz-Fleischer et al. 2000). Table 1 – Records for frugivorous species (Diptera: Tephritidae) showing the host marking behavior. Tribe Genus Species Reference A. suspensa Prokopy et al. 1977 A. sororcula Simões et al. 1978 A. fraterculus Prokopy et al. 1982 A. pseudoparallela Poloni and Silva 1986 A. bistrigata Selivon 1991 Toxotrypanini Anastrepha A. grandis Silva 1991 A. ludens Papaj and Aluja 1993 A. striata Aluja et al. 1993 A. obliqua Aluja and Díaz-Fleischer 2006 A. serpentina R. completa Círio 1972 R. pomonnela Prokopy 1972 R. cerasi Katsoyannos 1975 R. fausta Prokopy 1975 R. cingulata R. cornivora Carpomyinae Rhagoletis R. indifferens Prokopy et al. 1976 R. mendax R. tabellaria R. basiola Averill and Prokopy 1981 R. zephyria Averill and Prokopy 1982 R. alternata Bauer 1986 Ceratitidini Ceratitis C. capitata Prokopy et al. 1978 There are no records of males marking in any Non- frugivorous tephritid have been less studied other member of the genus, including the species in comparison to the frugivorous species. that have been characterized regarding the use of HMP (Prokopy and Papaj 2000). In non- BIOLOGICAL MEANING OF HOST frugivorous tephritid, there are few records of the MARKING behavior of drawing the aculeus with simultaneous deposition of HMP.