Are insect frugivores always plant pests? The impact of fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) larvae on host plant fitness

Herbivory is generally regarded as negatively impacting on host plant fitness. Frugivorous insects, which feed directly on plant reproductive tissues, are predicted to be particularly damaging to hosts. We tested this prediction with the fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni, by recording the impact of larval feeding on two direct (seed number and germination) and two indirect (fruit decay rate and attraction/deterrence of vertebrate frugivores) measures of host plant fitness. Experiments were done in the laboratory, glasshouse and tropical rainforest. We found no negative impact of larval feeding on seed number or germination for three test plants: tomato, capsicum and eggplant. Further, larval feeding accelerated the initiation of decay and increased the final level of fruit decay in tomatoes, apples, pawpaw and pear, a result considered to be beneficial to the fruit. In rainforest studies, native rodents preferred infested apple and pears compared to uninfested control fruit; however, there were no differences observed between treatments for tomato and pawpaw. For our study fruits, these results demonstrate that fruit fly larval infestation has neutral or beneficial impacts on the host plant, an outcome which may be largely influenced by the physical properties of the host. These results may contribute to explaining why fruit flies have not evolved the same level of host specialization generally observed for other herbivore groups.

Taxonomic review of the chironomid genus Cricotopus v.d. Wulp (Diptera: Chironomidae) from Australia : keys to males, females, pupae and larvae, description of ten new species and comments on Paratrichocladius Santos Abreu

The Australian species of the Orthocladiinae genus Cricotopus Wulp (Diptera: Chironomidae) are revised for larval, pupal, adult male and female life stages. Eleven species, ten of which are new, are recognised and keyed, namely Cricotopus acornis Drayson & Cranston sp. nov., Cricotopus albitarsis Hergstrom sp. nov., Cricotopus annuliventris (Skuse), Cricotopus brevicornis Drayson & Cranston sp. nov., Cricotopus conicornis Drayson & Cranston sp. nov., Cricotopus hillmani Drayson & Cranston, sp. nov., Cricotopus howensis Cranston sp. nov., Cricotopus parbicinctus Hergstrom sp. nov., Cricotopus tasmania Drayson & Cranston sp. nov., Cricotopus varicornis Drayson & Cranston sp. nov. and Cricotopus wangi Cranston & Krosch sp. nov. Using data from this study, we consider the wider utility of morphological and molecular diagnostic tools in untangling species diversity in the Chironomidae. Morphological support for distinguishing Cricotopus from Paratrichocladius Santo-Abreu in larval and pupal stages appears lacking for Australian taxa and brief notes are provided concerning this matter.