Cargando…

Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies

Insects tend to live within well-defined habitats, and at smaller scales can have distinct microhabitat preferences. These preferences are important, but often overlooked, in applications of the sterile insect technique. Different microhabitat preferences of sterile and wild insects may reflect diff...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Inskeep, Jess R., Allen, Andrew P., Taylor, Phillip W., Rempoulakis, Polychronis, Weldon, Christopher W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34155249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92218-8
_version_ 1783710609007706112
author Inskeep, Jess R.
Allen, Andrew P.
Taylor, Phillip W.
Rempoulakis, Polychronis
Weldon, Christopher W.
author_facet Inskeep, Jess R.
Allen, Andrew P.
Taylor, Phillip W.
Rempoulakis, Polychronis
Weldon, Christopher W.
author_sort Inskeep, Jess R.
collection PubMed
description Insects tend to live within well-defined habitats, and at smaller scales can have distinct microhabitat preferences. These preferences are important, but often overlooked, in applications of the sterile insect technique. Different microhabitat preferences of sterile and wild insects may reflect differences in environmental tolerance and may lead to spatial separation in the field, both of which may reduce the control program efficiency. In this study, we compared the diurnal microhabitat distributions of mass-reared (fertile and sterile) and wild Queensland fruit flies, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Flies were individually tagged and released into field cages containing citrus trees. We recorded their locations in the canopies (height from ground, distance from canopy center), behavior (resting, grooming, walking, feeding), and the abiotic conditions on occupied leaves (temperature, humidity, light intensity) throughout the day. Flies from all groups moved lower in the canopy when temperature and light intensity were high, and humidity was low; lower canopy regions provided shelter from these conditions. Fertile and sterile mass-reared flies of both sexes were generally lower in the canopies than wild flies. Flies generally fed from the top sides of leaves that were lower in the canopy, suggesting food sources in these locations. Our observations suggest that mass-reared and wild B. tryoni occupy different locations in tree canopies, which could indicate different tolerances to environmental extremes and may result in spatial separation of sterile and wild flies when assessed at a landscape scale.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8217526
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82175262021-06-22 Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies Inskeep, Jess R. Allen, Andrew P. Taylor, Phillip W. Rempoulakis, Polychronis Weldon, Christopher W. Sci Rep Article Insects tend to live within well-defined habitats, and at smaller scales can have distinct microhabitat preferences. These preferences are important, but often overlooked, in applications of the sterile insect technique. Different microhabitat preferences of sterile and wild insects may reflect differences in environmental tolerance and may lead to spatial separation in the field, both of which may reduce the control program efficiency. In this study, we compared the diurnal microhabitat distributions of mass-reared (fertile and sterile) and wild Queensland fruit flies, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Flies were individually tagged and released into field cages containing citrus trees. We recorded their locations in the canopies (height from ground, distance from canopy center), behavior (resting, grooming, walking, feeding), and the abiotic conditions on occupied leaves (temperature, humidity, light intensity) throughout the day. Flies from all groups moved lower in the canopy when temperature and light intensity were high, and humidity was low; lower canopy regions provided shelter from these conditions. Fertile and sterile mass-reared flies of both sexes were generally lower in the canopies than wild flies. Flies generally fed from the top sides of leaves that were lower in the canopy, suggesting food sources in these locations. Our observations suggest that mass-reared and wild B. tryoni occupy different locations in tree canopies, which could indicate different tolerances to environmental extremes and may result in spatial separation of sterile and wild flies when assessed at a landscape scale. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8217526/ /pubmed/34155249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92218-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Inskeep, Jess R.
Allen, Andrew P.
Taylor, Phillip W.
Rempoulakis, Polychronis
Weldon, Christopher W.
Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies
title Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies
title_full Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies
title_fullStr Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies
title_full_unstemmed Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies
title_short Canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild Queensland fruit flies
title_sort canopy distribution and microclimate preferences of sterile and wild queensland fruit flies
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8217526/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34155249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92218-8
work_keys_str_mv AT inskeepjessr canopydistributionandmicroclimatepreferencesofsterileandwildqueenslandfruitflies
AT allenandrewp canopydistributionandmicroclimatepreferencesofsterileandwildqueenslandfruitflies
AT taylorphillipw canopydistributionandmicroclimatepreferencesofsterileandwildqueenslandfruitflies
AT rempoulakispolychronis canopydistributionandmicroclimatepreferencesofsterileandwildqueenslandfruitflies
AT weldonchristopherw canopydistributionandmicroclimatepreferencesofsterileandwildqueenslandfruitflies