Trapping to monitor tephritid movement: Results, best practice, and assessment of alternatives

Movement of tephritid flies underpins their survival, reproduction, and ability to establish in new areas and is thus of importance when designing effective management strategies. Much of the knowledge currently available on tephritid movement throughout landscapes comes from the use of direct or indirect methods that rely on the trapping of individuals. Here, we review published experimental designs and methods from mark-release-recapture (MRR) studies, as well as other methods, that have been used to estimate movement of the four major tephritid pest genera (Bactrocera, Ceratitis, Anastrepha, and Rhagoletis). In doing so, we aim to illustrate the theoretical and practical considerations needed to study tephritid movement. MRR studies make use of traps to directly estimate the distance that tephritid species can move within a generation and to evaluate the ecological and physiological factors that influence dispersal patterns. MRR studies, however, require careful planning to ensure that the results obtained are not biased by the methods employed, including marking methods, trap properties, trap spacing, and spatial extent of the trapping array. Despite these obstacles, MRR remains a powerful tool for determining tephritid movement, with data particularly required for understudied species that affect developing countries. To ensure that future MRR studies are successful, we suggest that site selection be carefully considered and sufficient resources be allocated to achieve optimal spacing and placement of traps in line with the stated aims of each study. An alternative to MRR is to make use of indirect methods for determining movement, or more correctly, gene flow, which have become widely available with the development of molecular tools. Key to these methods is the trapping and sequencing of a suitable number of individuals to represent the genetic diversity of the sampled population and investigate population structuring using nuclear genomic markers or non-recombinant mitochondrial DNA markers. Microsatellites are currently the preferred marker for detecting recent population displacement and provide genetic information that may be used in assignment tests for the direct determination of contemporary movement. Neither MRR nor molecular methods, however, are able to monitor fine-scale movements of individual flies. Recent developments in the miniaturization of electronics offer the tantalising possibility to track individual movements of insects using harmonic radar. Computer vision and radio frequency identification tags may also permit the tracking of fine-scale movements by tephritid flies by automated resampling, although these methods come with the same problems as traditional traps used in MRR studies. Although all methods described in this chapter have limitations, a better understanding of tephritid movement far outweighs the drawbacks of the individual methods because of the need for this information to manage tephritid populations.

The complexities of knowing what it is you are trapping

The effectiveness of any trapping system is highly dependent on the ability to accurately identify the specimens collected. For many fruit fly species, accurate identification (= diagnostics) using morphological or molecular techniques is relatively straightforward and poses few technical challenges. However, nearly all genera of pest tephritids also contain groups of species where single, stand-alone tools are not sufficient for accurate identification: such groups include the Bactrocera dorsalis complex, the Anastrepha fraterculus complex and the Ceratitis FAR complex. Misidentification of high-impact species from such groups can have dramatic consequences and negate the benefits of an otherwise effective trapping program. To help prevent such problems, this chapter defines what is meant by a species complex and describes in detail how the correct identification of species within a complex requires the use of an integrative taxonomic approach. Integrative taxonomy uses multiple, independent lines of evidence to delimit species boundaries, and the underpinnings of this approach from both the theoretical speciation literature and the systematics/taxonomy literature are described. The strength of the integrative approach lies in the explicit testing of hypotheses and the use of multiple, independent species delimitation tools. A case is made for a core set of species delimitation tools (pre- and post-zygotic compatibility tests, multi-locus phylogenetic analysis, chemoecological studies, and morphometric and geometric morphometric analyses) to be adopted as standards by tephritologists aiming to resolve economically important species complexes. In discussing the integrative approach, emphasis is placed on the subtle but important differences between integrative and iterative taxonomy. The chapter finishes with a case study that illustrates how iterative taxonomy applied to the B. dorsalis species complex led to incorrect taxonomic conclusions, which has had major implications for quarantine, trade, and horticultural pest management. In contrast, an integrative approach to the problem has resolved species limits in this taxonomically difficult group, meaning that robust diagnostics are now available.

Resolving cryptic species complexes of major tephritid pests

An FAO/IAEA Co-ordinated Research Project (CRP) on “Resolution of Cryptic Species Complexes of Tephritid Pests to Overcome Constraints to SIT Application and International Trade” was conducted from 2010 to 2015. As captured in the CRP title, the objective was to undertake targeted research into the systematics and diagnostics of taxonomically challenging fruit fly groups of economic importance. The scientific output was the accurate alignment of biological species with taxonomic names; which led to the applied outcome of assisting FAO and IAEA Member States in overcoming technical constraints to the application of the Sterile Insect Technique (SIT) against pest fruit flies and the facilitation of international agricultural trade. Close to 50 researchers from over 20 countries participated in the CRP, using coordinated, multidisciplinary research to address, within an integrative taxonomic framework, cryptic species complexes of major tephritid pests. The following progress was made for the four complexes selected and studied: Anastrepha fraterculus complex – Eight morphotypes and their geographic and ecological distributions in Latin America were defined. The morphotypes can be considered as distinct biological species on the basis of differences in karyotype, sexual incompatibility, post-mating isolation, cuticular hydrocarbon, pheromone, and molecular analyses. Discriminative taxonomic tools using linear and geometric morphometrics of both adult and larval morphology were developed for this complex. Bactrocera dorsalis complex – Based on genetic, cytogenetic, pheromonal, morphometric, and behavioural data, which showed no or only minor variation between the Asian/African pest fruit flies Bactrocera dorsalis, B. papayae, B. philippinensis and B. invadens, the latter three species were synonymized with B. dorsalis. Of the five target pest taxa studied, only B. dorsalis and B. carambolae remain as scientifically valid names. Molecular and pheromone markers are now available to distinguish B. dorsalis from B. carambolae. Ceratitis FAR Complex (C. fasciventris, C. anonae, C. rosa) – Morphology, morphometry, genetic, genomic, pheromone, cuticular hydrocarbon, ecology, behaviour, and developmental physiology data provide evidence for the existence of five different entities within this fruit fly complex from the African region. These are currently recognised as Ceratitis anonae, C. fasciventris (F1 and F2), C. rosa and a new species related to C. rosa (R2). The biological limits within C. fasciventris (i.e. F1 and F2) are not fully resolved. Microsatellites markers and morphological identification tools for the adult males of the five different FAR entities were developed based on male leg structures. Zeugodacus cucurbitae (formerly Bactrocera (Zeugodacus) cucurbitae) – Genetic variability was studied among melon fly populations throughout its geographic range in Africa and the Asia/Pacific region and found to be limited. Cross-mating studies indicated no incompatibility or sexual isolation. Host preference and genetic studies showed no evidence for the existence of host races. It was concluded that the melon fly does not represent a cryptic species complex, neither with regard to geographic distribution nor to host range. Nevertheless, the higher taxonomic classification under which this species had been placed, by the time the CRP was started, was found to be paraphyletic; as a result the subgenus Zeugodacus was elevated to genus level.