Synonymization of key pest species within the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae): Taxonomic changes based on a review of 20 years of integrative morphological, molecular, cytogenetic, behavioural and chemoecological data

Bactrocera papayae Drew & Hancock, Bactrocera philippinensis Drew & Hancock, Bactrocera carambolae Drew & Hancock, and Bactrocera invadens Drew, Tsuruta & White are four horticultural pest tephritid fruit fly species that are highly similar, morphologically and genetically, to the destructive pest, the Oriental fruit fly, Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae). This similarity has rendered the discovery of reliable diagnostic characters problematic, which, in view of the economic importance of these taxa and the international trade implications, has resulted in ongoing difficulties for many areas of plant protection and food security. Consequently, a major international collaborative and integrated multidisciplinary research effort was initiated in 2009 to build upon existing literature with the specific aim of resolving biological species limits among B. papayae, B. philippinensis, B. carambolae, B. invadens and B. dorsalis to overcome constraints to pest management and international trade. Bactrocera philippinensis has recently been synonymized with B. papayae as a result of this initiative and this review corroborates that finding; however, the other names remain in use. While consistent characters have been found to reliably distinguish B. carambolae from B. dorsalis, B. invadens and B. papayae, no such characters have been found to differentiate the latter three putative species. We conclude that B. carambolae is a valid species and that the remaining taxa, B. dorsalis, B. invadens and B. papayae, represent the same species. Thus, we consider B. dorsalis (Hendel) as the senior synonym of B. papayae Drew and Hancock syn.n. and B. invadens Drew, Tsuruta & White syn.n. A redescription of B. dorsalis is provided. Given the agricultural importance of B. dorsalis, this taxonomic decision will have significant global plant biosecurity implications, affecting pest management, quarantine, international trade, postharvest treatment and basic research. Throughout the paper, we emphasize the value of independent and multidisciplinary tools in delimiting species, particularly in complicated cases involving morphologically cryptic taxa.

Calculation of the speed of walking of individuals with transfemoral amputation fitted with bone-anchored prosthesis

Typically, the walking ability of individuals with a transfemoral amputation (TFA) can be represented by the speed of walking (SofW) obtained in experimental settings. Recent developments in portable kinetic systems allow assessing the level of activity of TFA during actual daily living outside the confined space of a gait lab. Unfortunately, only minimal spatio-temporal characteristics could be extracted from the kinetic data including the cadence and the duration on gait cycles. Therefore, there is a need for a way to use some of these characteristics to assess the instantaneous speed of walking during daily living. The purpose of the study was to compare several methods to determine SofW using minimal spatial gait characteristics.

Errors in the knee joint forces and moments during gait depending on the foot and knee prosthetic components

Background Previously studies showed that inverse dynamics based on motion analysis and force-plate is inaccurate compared to direct measurements for individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA). Indeed, direct measurements can appropriately take into account the absorption at the prosthetic foot and the resistance at the prosthetic knee. [1-3] However, these studies involved only a passive prosthetic knee. Aim The objective of the present study was to investigate if different types of prosthetic feet and knees can exhibit different levels of error in the knee joint forces and moments. Method Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 9 TFAs (7 males and 2 females, 47±9 years old, 1.76±0.1 m 79±17 kg) with a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden), force plates (Kitsler, Winterthur, Switzerland) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee [1-17]. TFAs were all fitted with an osseointegrated implant system. The prostheses included different type of foot (N=5) and knee (N=3) components. The root mean square errors (RMSE) between direct measurements and the knee joint forces and moments estimated by inverse dynamics were computed for stance and swing phases of gait and expressed as a percentage of the measured amplitudes. A one-way Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA was performed (Statgraphics, Levallois-Perret, France) to analyse the effects of the prosthetic components on the RMSEs. Cross-effects and post-hoc tests were not analysed in this study. Results A significant effect (*) was found for the type of prosthetic foot on anterior-posterior force during swing (p=0.016), lateral-medial force during stance (p=0.009), adduction-abduction moment during stance (p=0.038), internal-external rotation moment during stance (p=0.014) and during swing (p=0.006), and flexion-extension moment during stance (p = 0.035). A significant effect (#) was found for the type of prosthetic knee on anterior-posterior force during swing (p=0.018) and adduction-abduction moment during stance (p=0.035). Discussion & Conclusion The RMSEs were larger during swing than during stance. It is because the errors on accelerations (as derived from motion analysis) become substantial with respect to the external loads. Thus, inverse dynamics during swing should be analysed with caution because the mean RMSEs are close to 50%. Conversely, there were fewer effects of the prosthetic components on RMSE during swing than during stance and, accordingly, fewer effects due to knees than feet. Thus, inverse dynamics during stance should be used with caution for comparison of different prosthetic components.

Hip power analysis in individuals with transfemoral amputation: A different strategy different from stabilisation during gait stance

Introduction and Objectives Joint moments and joint powers during gait are widely used to determine the effects of rehabilitation programs as well as prosthetic fitting. Following the definition of power (dot product of joint moment and joint angular velocity) it has been previously proposed to analyse the 3D angle between both vectors, αMw. Basically, joint power is maximised when both vectors are parallel and cancelled when both vectors are orthogonal. In other words, αMw < 60° reveals a propulsion configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to positive power) while αMw > 120° reveals a resistance configuration (more than 50% of the moment contribute to negative power). A stabilisation configuration (less than 50% of the moment contribute to power) corresponds to 60° < αMw < 120°. Previous studies demonstrated that hip joints of able-bodied adults (AB) are mainly in a stabilisation configuration (αMw about 90°) during the stance phase of gait. [1, 2] Individuals with transfemoral amputation (TFA) need to maximise joint power at the hip while controlling the prosthetic knee during stance. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that TFAs should adopt a strategy that is different from a continuous stabilisation. The objective of this study was to compute joint power and αMw for TFA and to compare them with AB. Methods Three trials of walking at self-selected speed were analysed for 8 TFAs (7 males and 1 female, 46±10 years old, 1.78±0.08 m 82±13 kg) and 8 ABs (males, 25±3 years old, 1.75±0.04, m 67±6 kg). The joint moments are computed from a motion analysis system (Qualisys, Goteborg, Sweden) and a multi-axial transducer (JR3, Woodland, USA) mounted above the prosthetic knee for TFAs and from a motion analysis system (Motion Analysis, Santa Rosa, USA) and force plates (Bertec, Columbus, USA) for ABs. The TFAs were fitted with an OPRA (Integrum, AB, Gothengurg, Sweden) osseointegrated implant system and their prosthetic designs include pneumatic, hydraulic and microprocessor knees. Previous studies showed that the inverse dynamics computed from the multi-axial transducer is the proper method considering the absorption at the foot and resistance at the knee. Results The peak of positive power at loading response (H1) was earlier and lower for TFA compared to AB. Although the joint power is lower, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals an obvious propulsion configuration (mean αMw about 20°) for TFA compared to a stabilisation configuration (mean αMw about 70°) for AB. The peaks of negative power at midstance (H2) and of positive power at preswing / initial swing (H3) occurred later, lower and longer for TFA compared to AB. Again, the joint powers are lower for TFA but, in this case, αMw is almost comparable (with a time lag), demonstrating a stabilisation (almost a resistance for TFA, mean αMw about 120°) and a propulsion configuration, respectively. The swing phase is not analysed in the present study. Conclusion The analysis of hip joint power may indicate that TFAs demonstrated less propulsion and resistance than ABs during the stance phase of gait. This is true from a quantitative point of view. On the contrary, the 3D angle between joint moment and joint angular velocity, αMw, reveals that TFAs have a remarkable propulsion strategy at loading response and almost a resistance strategy at midstance while ABs adopted a stabilisation strategy. The propulsion configuration, with αMw close to 0°, seems to aim at maximising the positive joint power. The configuration close to resistance, with αMw far from 180°, might aim at unlocking the prosthetic knee before swing while minimising the negative power. This analysis of both joint power and 3D angle between the joint moment and the joint angular velocity provides complementary insights into the gait strategies of TFA that can be used to support evidence-based rehabilitation and fitting of prosthetic components.