Next Article in Journal
Diversity and Molecular Evolution of Odorant Receptor in Hemipteran Insects
Previous Article in Journal
A Route to Translate a Silk-Based Medical Device from Lab to Clinic: The Silk Biomaterials Srl Experience
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/insects13020213
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Field and Laboratory Efficacy of Low-Impact Commercial Products in Preventing Olive Fruit Fly, Bactrocera oleae, Infestation

by
Elissa Daher
,
Nicola Cinosi
,
Elena Chierici
,
Gabriele Rondoni
*,
Franco Famiani
† and
Eric Conti
†
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, 06121 Perugia, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
F.F. and E.C. (Eric Conti) share last author position.
Insects 2022, 13(2), 213; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects13020213
Submission received: 24 January 2022 / Revised: 2 February 2022 / Accepted: 18 February 2022 / Published: 21 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Insect Pest and Vector Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The adoption of sustainable methods for herbivore pest control has become mandatory in Europe, with the EU directive 128/09. Since then, stringent evaluation protocols have been applied to insecticides and several molecules (that are suspected to be unsafe for the environment or human health) have been banned. Hence, the evaluation of sustainable methods, e.g., preventive tools based on the manipulation of pest behaviour, must be considered. Using field and laboratory assays, we tested the efficacy of different products in preventing infestation of a key pest of olive orchards, the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae. Our findings may be useful for the development of control strategies in integrated pest management (IPM) and organic agriculture.

Abstract

The olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae, is the key pest of olive trees in several areas of the world. Given the need for the development of sustainable control methods, preventive tools, based on the manipulation of pest behaviour, must be considered. Here, under field and laboratory conditions, we tested the efficacy of different products in preventing B. oleae infestation. A field trial was conducted, from July to November 2020, in an olive orchard located in Central Italy. A table olive variety was selected and sprayed with rock powder, propolis, the mixture of both, copper oxychloride, or water (control). All treatments, except propolis, caused a reduction of B. oleae oviposition in olives, compared to the control. The mixture allowed the strongest reduction of fly infestation throughout the season, suggesting a synergistic effect. Behavioural no-choice assays were conducted to better understand the effects of treatments on B. oleae females. Compared to the control, females showed a lower preference for the central area of an arena containing an olive twig bearing two olive fruits, fully developed, but still green, treated with rock powder, plus propolis mixture. For all treatments, B. oleae showed lower oviposition events, suggesting deterrence to oviposition. Our results indicate that the tested products may have value against B. oleae, within integrated pest management (IPM) and organic agriculture.

1. Introduction

Fruit flies, belonging to the family Tephritidae, include key pests of economically important fruit trees and vegetables [1]. Among the 932 species described to date [2], the most harmful ones are included in the genera Bactrocera Macquart, Ceratitis Macleay, and Rhagoletis Loew [3]. Economic damage is caused by larval feeding inside the fruits. Eggs are deposited under the fruit surface and larvae feed on the mesocarp causing fruit drop or a strong decline in fruit quality [4]. Many strategies have been deployed to manage these pests. Since the last four decades, organophosphate insecticides, especially as cover sprays, had been the most common control method adopted against fruit flies [5,6]. Organophosphate insecticides have a curative activity, mainly on eggs and larvae, as they can penetrate the outer layer of the fruit [7]. With the growing concerns about the impact of these insecticides on human health, environment, and non-target organisms, other pest management tools were promoted [8]. Since recent years, integrated pest management (IPM) strategies have been addressing the sustainable use of pesticides by improving monitoring systems in the agroecosystems [9]. The adoption of IPM or control methods authorized in organic farming have become mandatory in Europe (e.g., Directive 2009/128/EC on the sustainable use of pesticides). A regular pesticide review is periodically performed by the European Commission, and substances are banned if they are suspected to be unsafe for the environment or human health [9]. This is the case for malathion, applied extensively, with cover and bait sprays, to control C. capitata, and revoked with the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU), 2018/1495. Hence, alternative and safer substances for C. capitata control have been widely investigated (e.g., Commission Implementing Regulation (EU), 2019/1090) [10,11,12,13]. For many years, dimethoate represented the most effective product for controlling larvae of Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) (Diptera: Tephritidae) [14].
The olive fruit fly, B. oleae, is the key pest of cultivated olive tree, Olea europaea L. [15,16]. This species is almost globally widespread, ranging from Europe, Asia, and Africa to California and Mexico, where it is considered an invasive species [5,17,18]. Given the heavy use of chemicals, in the control of the olive fruit fly [19], alternative approaches are needed.
Biotechnical control strategies, such as mass trapping and attract and kill, have already been developed and are used to control low to medium infestation of B. oleae [5,6,7].
Kaolin particles and copper-based compounds can be used in organic and integrated pest management programs and may represent suitable control options. Kaolin provides an effective reduction of B. oleae oviposition in olive fruits [20]. Copper has a two-fold effect on B. oleae, i.e., adult repellence and/or antibacterial properties, which disrupts the symbiosis between larvae and bacterial symbionts [21,22,23]. Indeed, the endosymbiont Candidatus Erwinia dacicola (Enterobacteriaceae: Gammaproteobacteria) [24] is crucial for B. oleae larvae development in unripe olives [22]. This endosymbiont is involved in preventing the inhibitory effect of oleuropein [25], enabling olive fruit fly larvae to exploit the same host for an extensive period [22]. The use of copper in oliviculture is authorized for controlling plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi [26]. Therefore, the efficacy of copper against B. oleae should be considered as a side effect, albeit desired, of applications that target plant pathogens. Another compound, propolis, might be effective against B. oleae, due to its demonstrated antibacterial properties and, possibly, oviposition deterrence [21,27].
Thus, improving control protocols, using sustainable products, characterized by oviposition deterrence effects on B. oleae, becomes essential. Under field and laboratory conditions, we evaluated the efficacy of two new commercial formulations, based on propolis and rock powder, both allowed in organic agriculture and of traditional copper formulations. In the field, we assessed the efficacy of these products in preventing B. oleae infestation, whereas, in the laboratory, we investigated the supporting mechanism.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

The trial was conducted in an olive grove located in Spello (Umbria, Italy; geographic coordinates 42°59′26″ N 12°41′47″ E), from July till November 2020, on table olives belonging to the Ascolana Tenera variety. Three olive trees were selected, and, for each tree, five branches (bearing 24 to 37 drupes) were treated with the different products. Treatments consisted of: rock powder (commercial name “Polvere di Roccia”, CIFO Srl, San Giorgio di Piano, BO, Italy), at the dose of 6 kg/ha (600 g/hl concentration); propolis (commercial name “Propolis”, CIFO Srl), at the dose of 3 L/ha (300 mL/hl concentration); a mixture of propolis, plus rock powder, at the dose of 3 L/ha (300 mL/hl) + 6 kg/ha (600 g/hl), respectively; copper oxychloride (commercial name “Cupravit Blu 35 WG”, Bayer Cropscience S.r.l.), at the dose of 4 kg/ha (400 g/hl concentration); and water for the experimental control. All products, except rock powder, were diluted with water. The doses were determined according to the information reported in the labels of the commercial products. Rock powder was applied for water suspension. This product is <20 μm, obtained by mechanical grinding, sterilization, and micronization of a selection of volcanic rock, and contains chabasite (70%), phillipsite (2%), K-feldspar (5%), biotite (2%), pyroxene (3%), and volcanic glass (18%). Concerning propolis, this product is an extract of honeybee propolis (1.2% w/w) in linseed oil solution (complete information available at www.cifo.it, accessed on 2 February 2022).
About 100 mL of each treatment were sprayed in each replicate (on both adaxial and abaxial surfaces of the leaves), until drip, to assure a complete coverage. Applications were repeated four times during the season and scheduled based on time after previous application (maximum one month) and product washing out by rain (on 17 July, 11 August, 24 August, and 2 September). The first application was conducted, in correspondence with the initial capture of B. oleae in pheromone traps, when no olives were infested yet. Thirteen periodical surveys were conducted from 29 July to 26 November. For each survey, all olives belonging to the treatment and control branches were carefully inspected to reveal any presence of oviposition punctures [28].

2.2. Insect Rearing

Bactrocera oleae adults were obtained from the larvae in infested olive fruits, collected on late September 2020 from different olive varieties of Umbria region (central Italy). Fruits were placed on a plastic net (1 cm × 1 cm hole size), suspended inside a mesh cage (Kweekkooi 40 cm × 40 cm × 60 cm, Vermandel, Hulst, The Netherlands), and maintained under controlled environmental conditions (25 ± 1 °C, 60 ± 5% R.H., 16:8 h L:D photoperiod). Two layers of paper towels were placed at the bottom of the cage. Mature larvae that dropped from the olives hid under the paper layers and pupated. Pupae were collected three times per week and transferred to smaller mesh cages (Kweekkooi 30 cm × 30 cm × 30 cm, Vermandel, Hulst, The Netherlands), until the emergence of adult flies. These were provided with tap water-soaked cotton balls and pure honey on a piece of Parafilm®. Food was refreshed every 2 days. Adults were maintained together for mating for about two weeks, before being used for the bioassays [29].

2.3. Laboratory Behavioural Assays

Behavioural no-choice tests, using female B. oleae, were conducted to investigate possible deterrence mechanism of the different products that were tested in the field. Olive twigs, of the Frantoio variety, were collected from the field, stored at 4 °C, and used within 3 days. Healthy twigs, of approximatively 3 cm length, each bearing two olive fruits, fully developed, but still green and a leaf, were sprayed until drip, with 2 mL of each tested formulation. Treatments consisted in rock powder, propolis, a mixture of propolis and rock powder, copper oxychloride, and copper sulphate (Poltiglia Caffaro 20 DF NEW-Sumitomo Chemical Italia s.r.l., used at 7 mg/mL).
Equivalent concentrations to the field were employed. Water was applied as the control. A 20 mL atomiser bottle (Shenzhen Jiawang Trading Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China) was used to apply treatments on the olive twigs. After spraying, the twigs were allowed to air dry (approximately for 30 min).
The experimental arena consisted of a Petri dish (15 cm diam × 1.5 cm), set upside-down on a filter paper (Filter-lab 1510, Filtros Anoia, S.A. Barcelona, Spain), covering a treated twig placed in the centre. A circle, of 5 cm diameter, containing the twig, was drawn using a fine-tip pencil and considered the central area of the arena. For the behavioural test, a single B. oleae mated female was introduced under the Petri dish. After two minutes of acclimation [30,31], each female was observed for 10 min, and its behaviour was recorded using JWatcher 1.0 [32,33]. Recorded behaviour included the entrance of the insect in the central area of the arena, exit from it, and oviposition events. If oviposition was observed, the fruit was dissected at the end of the bioassay and observed under a stereomicroscope to verify egg presence. Each twig and arena were used to test two females, unless a fruit was punctured, in which case the twig was replaced with a new one. The bioassay room was kept at an average temperature of 25 °C (±1). For each treatment, 92 females were tested.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

For field data, the effect of treatments on the cumulative number of B. oleae having infested fruits (calculated on % of total observed fruits) was evaluated, by means of two-parameter asymptotic models [34]. To account for repeated observations across space (multiple treatments conducted on the same plant) and time (repeated observations on the same branches), the plant identity effect was included as a random term in the model, and an autocorrelation structure between consecutive samplings was considered [35]. The number of olives per each treated branch was recorded at each observation. Sometimes, the number of olives at a given sampling date was lower, compared to the number of the previous survey. This was because infested fruits may drop during the season [5,36], and this phenomenon increases with B. oleae infestation [37,38]. We have occasionally observed dropped fruits at different timings. Since most of them exhibited B. oleae oviposition marks, we assumed, for data analysis, that all dropped fruits were infested by B. oleae. Differences between treatments were evaluated by means of the likelihood ratio test (LRT) [34,39].
For laboratory data, several common indexes were calculated, including: residence time (i.e., the time spent by each female in the central area of the arena), percentage of active insects (i.e., the percentage of insects that visited the central area of the arena), and time to visit, defined as the time period from the start of the observations until the entrance of B. oleae inside the central area [40]. Residence time data were subjected to arcsine square root transformation and analyzed by means of generalized linear model (GLM), with underlying Gaussian distribution. Treatment comparisons with the control were assessed by means of multiple comparisons procedures with Dunnett adjustment. Active insects were calculated by means of binomial GLM, followed by multiple comparisons procedure with Dunnett adjustment. Time to visits were evaluated using the Cox proportional hazard model (COXPH) [41,42]. The percentage of insect ovipositing in the treatments vs. control were analyzed by means of Fisher’s exact test (FET), due to the low number of positive outcomes in some treatments. The p-values were adjusted using Hochberg procedure. Data analysis was conducted using R [43], packages “nlme” [44], and “survival” [42].

3. Results

3.1. Field Experiment

The percentage of olives infested by B. oleae, i.e., showing at least one oviposition puncture, differed among experimental treatments (LRT, χ2 (8) = 63.28, p < 0.0001; Figure 1), with a very high level of observed infestations in control twigs twelve days after the first treatment (82.2% ± 10.55). Olive twigs, bearing two olive fruits, fully developed, but still green, treated with rock powder and copper oxychloride, exhibited similar levels of infestation (χ2 (2) = 4.58, p = 0.10), and both treatments were effective in reducing B. oleae oviposition, compared to control (χ2 (2) = 22.50, p < 0.0001) or propolis (χ2 (2) = 12.17, p = 0.0023). The mixture of rock powder and propolis was also more effective, compared to propolis (χ2 (2) = 38.02, p < 0.0001) or the control (χ2 (2) = 49.37, p < 0.0001). Additionally, this mixture was more effective, compared to rock powder or propolis used alone (χ2 (2) = 17.79, p < 0.0001). The effect of propolis did not differ from the control (χ2 (2) = 3.26, p = 0.19).

3.2. Laboratory Behavioural Assays

The residence time of the B. oleae females, in the internal area of the arena, varied depending on the treatment (Gaussian GLM: F(5, 546) = 2.71, p = 0.020), with the mixture of rock powder plus propolis being lower than the control (PDunnett = 0.038; Figure 2). All other treatments were not significantly different from the control (PDunnett > 0.05). These results were also confirmed by data on active insects (i.e., the % of insects that entered the internal area), being lower for rock powder and propolis, compared to the control (binomial GLM, PDunnett = 0.032). Bactrocera oleae oviposition events were significantly lower for all treatments, compared to the control (FET, propolis: PDunnett = 0.036, rock powder and propolis: PDunnett = 0.007, rock powder: PDunnett = 0.004, copper oxychloride: PDunnett = 0.004, copper sulphate: PDunnett = 0.036).
Similarly, females showed a higher time to visit, i.e., they required more time before entering the central area of the arena, when olive twigs were treated with the mixture of rock powder and propolis, compared to the control (COXPH, p = 0.006, Table 1).

4. Discussion

The growing consciousness on the side effects of chemicals used for plant protection has resulted in increased research of more environment-friendly approaches, which encompass the manipulation (e.g., deterrence or repellence) of pest behaviour [45]. Such strategy has been investigated in several pest groups and can be either mediated by the plant through direct plant resistance or achieved using chemical compounds [46,47,48,49]. In our research, the oviposition deterrence efficacy of two new formulations was investigated, under field and laboratory conditions.
The field experiment results reported here demonstrate the role of the rock powder, especially when combined with propolis, in reducing fruit infestation by B. oleae. The cultivar Ascolana Tenera is known to be highly susceptible to fly infestation [50], due to its large size and greener colour, which make it more attractive, compared to other varieties [15,28]. This explains, at least partially, the high level of infestation on this variety at the beginning of the trial, compared to other varieties (data not shown). In spite of that, during the whole data collection period, i.e., from 12 days after first treatments to 11 weeks later, the branches treated with the rock powder and propolis mixture showed lower levels of infestation, compared to those of the other treatments. Particle film technology represents an important instrument in controlling insect pests, capable of interfering with insect behaviour and egg-laying [51,52]. This technology is also one of the few alternatives acceptable in organic olive groves for managing B. oleae [53]. A different type of rock powder, i.e., zeolite, showed a similar activity against several insect pest groups, including fruit flies (reviewed by [54]). The deterring effect is comparable to that of kaolin, a clay mineral widely used in preventing olive infestation by B. oleae [23,55,56,57]. Indeed, particle-film can act both on the host recognition ability of gravid B. oleae females and tactile modification of olive surface, potentially leading to oviposition deterrence [20]. On the other hand, with its antimicrobial action, propolis could potentially interfere with the strict relationship between bacteria and B. oleae [21]. The olive fruit fly exploits volatile and non-volatile molecules from epiphytic bacteria, in order to locate host plant and find bacteria, which are used as a food source by adult flies [58]. In spite of that, in our experiments, the treatments with propolis alone were not effective in reducing fly infestation, compared to the control. Therefore, we can hypothesize a synergistic effect of rock powder and propolis on B. oleae behaviour. In addition, based on observations in the field (data not shown), propolis could have served as an adjuvant, when mixed with rock powder, providing a longer persistence of rock powder on plants.
Treatment with copper oxychloride also resulted in a lower level of infestation, compared to control. This can be explained by the symbionticide and ovipositional deterrent actions of copper compounds [22,59]. However, copper accumulates in soil, the discovery of negative effects of copper-based compounds on soil microbiota, and the development of resistant strains have raised concerns about its use [60]. Therefore, national and international legislations have introduced maximum limits of copper use in agriculture, as well as alternatives for its gradual replacement, are under evaluation (e.g., Commission Implementing Regulation (EU), 2018/1981, [61]). In any case, negative effects on beneficial organisms must also be assessed for other compounds, such as clays. Kaolin-based products, similar to copper, can alter the behaviour, survival, or community composition of predators and parasitoids, such as Anthocoridae, Coccinellidae, and Braconidae [62,63]. These native and introduced entomophages often provide partial or substantial control of olive secondary pests, such as moths, scales, and psyllids [64,65]. Concerning soil biodiversity, a mixture of copper and propolis sensibly reduced the arthropod biodiversity in olive orchard soils, compared to the control [66]. However, in agroecosystems, such reductions can be more than counterbalanced by agricultural practices, such as cover crop mulching and no-tillage management, which have been demonstrated to support high invertebrate biodiversity (e.g., Collembola) [67,68,69]. In the present research, we have not evaluated the possible non-target effects on beneficial organisms of the high doses of the tested products (e.g., rock powder and copper), which remains unknown. Results of the behavioural assays are consistent with those of the field tests. The mixture of rock powder and propolis elicited, in B. oleae, the highest time to visit, lowest residence time, and lowest percentage of active individuals in the central area of the arena containing the treated twigs. This indicates a lower preference by the olive fruit fly, when both compounds are present in the environment, although additional investigations are necessary to define the behavioural mechanisms. Remarkably, all treatments reduced the percentage of oviposition events, by B. oleae, in olive fruits, compared to control, clearly indicating an oviposition deterrence effect of these products on the fly. These results confirm those obtained in the field experiments, except for propolis, which did not show any deterrent effect on the olive fruit fly in the field. This could be due to the high susceptibility of the variety used in the field, Ascolana Tenera, to B. oleae [50]. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the oviposition events under laboratory conditions were in general low, which might have increased the deterrence efficacy of treatments. The low oviposition events might depend on the tested females, which were collected, reared, and assessed late in the season. Additionally, the laboratory rearing conditions and possible absence of bacteria, normally present in the olive orchards, might have decreased female fitness [21,70,71].
In conclusion, in both the field and laboratory, we demonstrated the positive effect of different products as oviposition deterrents against B. oleae, with the highest efficacy obtained from a mixture of rock powder and propolis. The efficacy seems to be amplified by a possible synergistic effect, although the actual mechanism needs further research and technical details, concerning their field application, are still under investigation. Since both rock powder and propolis are of natural origin and allowed in organic agriculture (CE 834/2007, 1235/2008), our findings encourage further large-scale field experimentation and implementation, with the aim of limiting the use of insecticides and copper-based products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.D., G.R., F.F. and E.C. (Eric Conti); methodology, E.D., N.C., G.R., F.F. and E.C. (Eric Conti); formal analysis G.R.; investigation, E.D., N.C., E.C. (Elena Chierici), G.R., F.F. and E.C. (Eric Conti); data curation, E.D. and G.R.; writing—original draft preparation, E.D., E.C. (Elena Chierici), and G.R.; writing—review and editing, E.D., N.C., E.C. (Elena Chierici), G.R., F.F. and E.C. (Eric Conti); supervision, G.R., F.F. and E.C. (Eric Conti); project administration, F.F.; funding acquisition, F.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funding was provided by Cifo Srl.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Andrea Luchetti for insect rearing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. White, I.M.; Elson-Harris, M.M. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics; White, I.M., Elson-Harris, M.M., Eds.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1992; ISBN 0851987907. [Google Scholar]
  2. Doorenweerd, C.; Leblanc, L.; Norrbom, A.L.; Jose, M.S.; Rubinoff, D. A global checklist of the 932 fruit fly species in the tribe Dacini (Diptera, Tephritidae). Zookeys 2018, 2018, 19–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Scolari, F.; Valerio, F.; Benelli, G.; Papadopoulos, N.T.; Vaníčková, L. Tephritid fruit fly semiochemicals: Current knowledge and future perspectives. Insects 2021, 12, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Potamitis, I.; Rigakis, I.; Tatlas, N.A. Automated surveillance of fruit flies. Sensors 2017, 17, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Daane, K.M.; Johnson, M.W. Olive fruit fly: Managing an ancient pest in modern times. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010, 55, 151–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hladnik, M. A review of plant protection against the olive fly (Bactrocera oleae (Rossi, 1790) Gmelin) and molecular methods to monitor the insecticide resistance alleles. Acta Agric. Slov. 2017, 109, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Wise, J.; Whalon, M. A systems approach to IPM integration, ecological assessment and resistance management in tree fruit orchards. In Biorational Control of Arthropod Pests: Application and Resistance Management; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 325–345. ISBN 9789048123155. [Google Scholar]
  8. Stetter, J.; Lieb, F. Innovation in crop protection: Trends in research. Angew. Chem.-Int. Ed. 2000, 39, 1724–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Damos, P.; Colomar, L.A.E.; Ioriatti, C. Integrated fruit production and pest management in europe: The apple case study and how far we are from the original concept? Insects 2015, 6, 626–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Peck, S.L.; Mcquate, G.T. Field tests of environmentally friendly malathion replacements to suppress wild Mediterranean fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) populations. J. Econ. Entomol. 2000, 93, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Urbaneja, A.; Chueca, P.; Montón, H.; Pascual-Ruiz, S.; Dembilio, O.; Vanaclocha, P.; Abad-Moyano, R.; Pina, T.; Castañera, P. Chemical alternatives to malathion for controlling Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae), and their side effects on natural enemies in Spanish citrus orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baronio, C.A.; Bernardi, D.; Schutze, I.X.; Baldin, M.M.; MacHota, R.; Garcia, F.R.M.; Botton, M. Toxicities of insecticidal toxic baits to control Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae): Implications for field management. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2782–2789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Voudouris, C.C.; Mavridis, K.; Kalaitzaki, A.; Skouras, P.J.; Kati, A.N.; Eliopoulos, P.A.; Vontas, J.; Margaritopoulos, J.T. Susceptibility of Ceratitis capitata to deltamethrin and spinosad in Greece. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 861–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Skouras, P.J.; Margaritopoulos, J.T.; Seraphides, N.A.; Ioannides, I.M.; Kakani, E.G.; Mathiopoulos, K.D.; Atsitsipis, J. Organophosphate resistance in olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae, populations in Greece and Cyprus. Pest Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Genç, H.; Nation, J.L. Maintaining Bactrocera oleae (Gmelin.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) colony on its natural host in the laboratory. J. Pest Sci. 2008, 81, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Giunti, G.; Campolo, O.; Laudani, F.; Algeri, G.M.; Palmeri, V. Olive fruit volatiles route intraspecific interactions and chemotaxis in Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) (Diptera: Tephritidae) females. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Nardi, F.; Carapelli, A.; Dallai, R.; Roderick, G.K.; Frati, F. Population structure and colonization history of the olive fly, Bactrocera oleae (Diptera, Tephritidae). Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 2729–2738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Müller, F.A.; Dias, N.P.; Gottschalk, M.S.; Garcia, F.R.M.; Nava, D.E. Potential distribution of Bactrocera oleae and the parasitoids Fopius arisanus and Psyttalia concolor, aiming at classical biological control. Biol. Control. 2019, 132, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kakani, E.G.; Mathiopoulos, K.D. Organophosphosphate resistance-related mutations in the acetylcholinesterase gene of Tephritidae. J. Appl. Entomol. 2008, 132, 762–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Saour, G.; Makee, H. A kaolin-based particle film for suppression of the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae Gmelin (Dip., Tephritidae) in olive groves. J. Appl. Entomol. 2004, 128, 28–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bigiotti, G.; Pastorelli, R.; Belcari, A.; Sacchetti, P. Symbiosis interruption in the olive fly: Effect of copper and propolis on Candidatus Erwinia dacicola. J. Appl. Entomol. 2019, 143, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sinno, M.; Bézier, A.; Vinale, F.; Giron, D.; Laudonia, S.; Garonna, A.P.; Pennacchio, F. Symbiosis disruption in the olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae (Rossi), as a potential tool for sustainable control. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 3199–3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mojdehi, M.R.A.; Keyhanian, A.A.; Rafiei, B. Application of oviposition deterrent compounds for the control of olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae Rossi. (Dip. Tephritidae) control. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2021, 42, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Capuzzo, C.; Firrao, G.; Mazzon, L.; Squartini, A.; Girolami, V. “Candidatus Erwinia dacicola”, a coevolved symbiotic bacterium of the olive fly Bactrocera oleae (Gmelin). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2005, 55, 1641–1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ben-Yosef, M.; Pasternak, Z.; Jurkevitch, E.; Yuval, B. Symbiotic bacteria enable olive fly larvae to overcome host defences. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2015, 2, 150170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. EFSA. Reasoned Opinion on the reviewof the existing maximum residue levels for copper compounds according to Article 12 of Regulation(EC) No 396/2005. EFSA J. 2018, 16, 5212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Androcioli, H.G.; Hoshino, A.T.; Meneghin, A.M.; Ventura, M.U.; Guide, B.A.; Hata, F.T.; de Oliveira Menezes, A., Jr. Alternative treatments diminish oviposition and viability of Leucoptera coffeella (Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae) eggs and larvae on coffee plants. Coffee Sci. 2021, 16, e161936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Malheiro, R.; Casal, S.; Baptista, P.; Pereira, J.A. Physico-chemical characteristics of olive leaves and fruits and their relation with Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) cultivar oviposition preference. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 194, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Benelli, G.; Bonsignori, G.; Stefanini, C.; Raspi, A.; Canale, A. The production of female sex pheromone in Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) young males does not influence their mating chances. Entomol. Sci. 2013, 16, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vitanović, E.; Aldrich, J.R.; Boundy-Mills, K.; Cagalj, M.; Ebeler, S.E.; Burrack, H.; Zalom, F.G.; Rodriguez-Saona, C. Olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae), attraction to volatile compounds produced by host and insect-associated yeast strains. J. Econ. Entomol. 2020, 113, 752–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mazzoni, V.; Polajnar, J.; Baldini, M.; Stacconi, M.V.R.; Anfora, G.; Guidetti, R.; Maistrello, L. Use of substrate-borne vibrational signals to attract the brown marmorated stink bug, Halyomorpha halys. J. Pest Sci. 2017, 90, 1219–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Blumstein, D.T.; Evans, C.S.; Daniels, J.C. JWatcher (Version 3, 1.0). 2006. Available online: http://www.jwatcher.ucla.edu (accessed on 1 April 2021).
  33. Bertoldi, V.; Rondoni, G.; Peri, E.; Conti, E.; Brodeur, J. Learning can be detrimental for a parasitic wasp. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0238336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ritz, C.; Streibig, J.C. Nonlinear Regression with R; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
  35. Zuur, A.F.; Ieno, E.N.; Walker, N.J.; Saveliev, A.A.; Smith, G.M. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 0387874577. [Google Scholar]
  36. Neuenschwander, P.; Michelakis, S. Olive fruit drop caused by Dacus oleae (Gmel.) (Dipt. Tephritidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 1981, 91, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cobourn, K.M.; Goodhue, R.E.; Williams, J.C. Managing a pest with harvest timing: Implications for crop quality and price. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2013, 40, 761–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Petacchi, R.; Zunin, P.; Evangelisti, F.; Tiscomia, E. Relation between Bactrocera oleae (Gmel.) infestation and oil chemical composition: Results of two-year trials in an eastern ligurian olive grove. Acta Hortic. 1994, 356, 395–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rondoni, G.; Ielo, F.; Ricci, C.; Conti, E. Behavioural and physiological responses to prey-related cues reflect higher competitiveness of invasive vs. native ladybirds. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 3716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Rondoni, G.; Chierici, E.; Agnelli, A.; Conti, E. Microplastics alter behavioural responses of an insect herbivore to a plant-soil system. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 787, 147716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rondoni, G.; Onofri, A.; Ricci, C. Differential susceptibility in a specialised aphidophagous ladybird, Platynaspis luteorubra (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), facing intraguild predation by exotic and native generalist predators. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2012, 22, 1334–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Therneau, T.M.; Grambsch, P.M. Modeling Survival Data: Extending the Cox Model; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2000; ISBN 0387987843. [Google Scholar]
  43. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2020; Available online: https://www.r-project.org/index.html (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  44. Pinheiro, J.; Bates, D.; DebRoy, S.; Sarkar, D.; R Core team. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models; R Package, Version 3.1-148. 2020. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=nlme (accessed on 1 December 2020).
  45. Turlings, T.C.J.; Erb, M. Tritrophic interactions mediated by herbivore-induced plant volatiles: Mechanisms, ecological relevance, and application potential. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2018, 63, 433–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rondoni, G.; Bertoldi, V.; Malek, R.; Djelouah, K.; Moretti, C.; Buonaurio, R.; Conti, E. Vicia faba plants respond to oviposition by invasive Halyomorpha halys activating direct defences against offspring. J. Pest Sci. 2018, 91, 671–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cook, S.M.; Khan, Z.R.; Pickett, J.A. The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2007, 52, 375–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Karban, R.; Yang, L.H.; Edwards, K.F. Volatile communication between plants that affects herbivory: A meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 2014, 17, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Piesik, D.; Pańka, D.; Jeske, M.; Wenda-Piesik, A.; Delaney, K.J.; Weaver, D.K. Volatile induction of infected and neighbouring uninfected plants potentially influence attraction/repellence of a cereal herbivore. J. Appl. Entomol. 2013, 137, 296–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Noce, M.E.; Perri, E.; Scalercio, S.; Iannotta, N. Phenolic compounds and susceptibility of olive cultivars to Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) infestations and complementary aspects: A review. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1057, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. da Costa, D.R.; Leite, S.A.; Dos Santos, M.P.; Coelho, B.S.; Moreira, A.A.; da Silva, C.A.D.; Joachim-Bravo, I.S.; Castellani, M.A. Influence of mineral particle films and biomaterials on guava fruits and implications for the oviposition of Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart) (diptera: Tephritidae). Insects 2021, 12, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Glenn, D.M.; Puterka, G.J. Particle Films: A New Technology for Agriculture. In Horticultural Reviews; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9780470650882. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sharma, R.R.; Vijay Rakesh Reddy, S.; Datta, S.C. Particle films and their applications in horticultural crops. Appl. Clay Sci. 2015, 116–117, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. De Smedt, C.; Someus, E.; Spanoghe, P. Potential and actual uses of zeolites in crop protection. Pest Manag. Sci. 2015, 71, 1355–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Perri, E.; Iannotta, N.; Muzzalupo, I.; Russo, A.; Caravita, M.A.; Pellegrino, M.; Parise, A.; Tucci, P. Kaolin protects olive fruits from Bactrocera oleae (Gmelin) infestations unaffecting olive oil quality. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2006, 30, 153. [Google Scholar]
  56. González-Núñez, M.; Pascual, S.; Cobo, A.; Seris, E.; Cobos, G.; Fernández, C.E.; Sánchez-Ramos, I. Copper and kaolin sprays as tools for controlling the olive fruit fly. Entomol. Gen. 2021, 41, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rotondi, A.; Morrone, L.; Facini, O.; Faccini, B.; Ferretti, G.; Coltorti, M. Distinct particle films impacts on olive leaf optical properties and plant physiology. Foods 2021, 10, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sacchetti, P.; Granchietti, A.; Landini, S.; Viti, C.; Giovannetti, L.; Belcari, A. Relationships between the olive fly and bacteria. J. Appl. Entomol. 2008, 132, 682–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gonçalves, F.; Torres, L. Effect of copper oxychloride on the olive infestation by Bactrocera oleae in northeastern Portugal. Acta Hortic. 2012, 949, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lamichhane, J.R.; Osdaghi, E.; Behlau, F.; Köhl, J.; Jones, J.B.; Aubertot, J. Thirteen decades of antimicrobial copper compounds applied in agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. La Torre, A.; Iovino, V.; Caradonia, F. Copper in plant protection: Current situation and prospects. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2018, 57, 201–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pascual, S.; Cobos, G.; Seris, E.; González-Núñez, M. Effects of processed kaolin on pests and non-target arthropods in a Spanish olive grove. J. Pest Sci. 2010, 83, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bengochea, P.; Amor, F.; Saelices, R.; Hernando, S.; Budia, F.; Adán, A.; Medina, P. Kaolin and copper-based products applications: Ecotoxicology on four natural enemies. Chemosphere 2013, 91, 1189–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Tena, A.; Soto, A.; Garcia-Marí, F. Parasitoid complex of black scale Saissetia oleae on citrus and olives: Parasitoid species composition and seasonal trend. BioControl 2008, 53, 473–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rondoni, G.; Borges, I.; Collatz, J.; Conti, E.; Costamagna, A.C.; Dumont, F.; Evans, E.W.; Grez, A.A.; Howe, A.G.; Lucas, E.; et al. Exotic ladybirds for biological control of herbivorous insects—A review. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2021, 169, 6–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Iannotta, N.; Belfiore, T.; Noce, M.E.; Scalercio, S.; Vizzarri, V. The Impact of Some Compounds Utilised in Organic Olive Groves on the Non-Target Arthropod Fauna: Canopy and Soil Levels. In Proceedings of the VI Jornadas Internacionales de Olivar Ecológico, Puente de Génave, Spain, 22–25 March 2007; Available online: http://orgprints.org/12893/01/Ecoliva_impatto_def.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022).
  67. Stinner, B.R.; McCartney, D.A.; Van Doren, D.M. Soil and foliage arthropod communities in conventional, reduced and no-tillage corn (maize, Zea mays L.) systems: A comparison after 20 years of continuous cropping. Soil Tillage Res. 1988, 11, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Massaccesi, L.; Rondoni, G.; Tosti, G.; Conti, E.; Guiducci, M.; Agnelli, A. Soil functions are affected by transition from conventional to organic mulch-based cropping system. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 153, 103639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rieff, G.G.; Natal-da-Luz, T.; Renaud, M.; Azevedo-Pereira, H.M.V.S.; Chichorro, F.; Schmelz, R.M.; de Sá, E.L.S.; Sousa, J.P. Impact of no-tillage versus conventional maize plantation on soil mesofauna with and without the use of a lambda-cyhalothrin based insecticide: A terrestrial model ecosystem experiment. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2020, 147, 103381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ben-Yosef, M.; Aharon, Y.; Jurkevitch, E.; Yuval, B. Give us the tools and we will do the job: Symbiotic bacteria affect olive fly fitness in a diet-dependent fashion. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 277, 1545–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Estes, A.M.; Hearn, D.J.; Burrack, H.J.; Rempoulakis, P.; Pierson, E.A. Prevalence of Candidatus Erwinia dacicola in wild and laboratory olive fruit fly populations and across developmental stages. Environ. Entomol. 2012, 41, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Insects 13 00213 g001 550
Figure 1. Field experiment. Seasonal trends of olive fruits, infested by Bactrocera oleae, on branches treated with rock powder (purplish red), propolis (red), a mixture of propolis + rock powder (blue), copper oxychloride (grey), or the control (black). Symbols represent observed mean % of raw data. Lines represent fitted two-parameter asymptotic models. According to likelihood ratio test, no differences at p ≤ 0.05 were detected between propolis and the control or between rock powder and copper.
Figure 1. Field experiment. Seasonal trends of olive fruits, infested by Bactrocera oleae, on branches treated with rock powder (purplish red), propolis (red), a mixture of propolis + rock powder (blue), copper oxychloride (grey), or the control (black). Symbols represent observed mean % of raw data. Lines represent fitted two-parameter asymptotic models. According to likelihood ratio test, no differences at p ≤ 0.05 were detected between propolis and the control or between rock powder and copper.
Insects 13 00213 g001
Insects 13 00213 g002 550
Figure 2. Behavioural assays. Residence time (mean s ± SE) (A) active insects (%) (B) and ovipositing insects (%) (C) of Bactrocera oleae in the central area of a Petri dish arena, containing an olive twig, bearing two olive fruits, fully developed, but still green, subjected to one of the following treatments: rock powder, propolis, a mixture of rock powder and propolis, copper oxychloride, copper sulfate. Water was used as the control. Differences between treatments and control were evaluated by means of generalized linear models (for residence time and active insects) or Fisher’s exact test (for ovipositing events), followed by multiple comparisons (asterisks denote statistically significant differences, p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 2. Behavioural assays. Residence time (mean s ± SE) (A) active insects (%) (B) and ovipositing insects (%) (C) of Bactrocera oleae in the central area of a Petri dish arena, containing an olive twig, bearing two olive fruits, fully developed, but still green, subjected to one of the following treatments: rock powder, propolis, a mixture of rock powder and propolis, copper oxychloride, copper sulfate. Water was used as the control. Differences between treatments and control were evaluated by means of generalized linear models (for residence time and active insects) or Fisher’s exact test (for ovipositing events), followed by multiple comparisons (asterisks denote statistically significant differences, p ≤ 0.05).
Insects 13 00213 g002
Table
Table 1. Behavioural assays. Summary of Cox proportional hazard model for time to visits of Bactrocera oleae in the central area of a Petri dish arena, containing an olive twig with fruits and leaves. Regression coefficient (β), standard error (SE), relative risk (exp(β)), and significance for the different experimental treatments (factorial levels of the covariate “treatment”), compared to the control, are given. A negative β value indicates the relative effect of the treatment, compared to control, on decreasing B. oleae visit probability in the internal area of the arena.
Table 1. Behavioural assays. Summary of Cox proportional hazard model for time to visits of Bactrocera oleae in the central area of a Petri dish arena, containing an olive twig with fruits and leaves. Regression coefficient (β), standard error (SE), relative risk (exp(β)), and significance for the different experimental treatments (factorial levels of the covariate “treatment”), compared to the control, are given. A negative β value indicates the relative effect of the treatment, compared to control, on decreasing B. oleae visit probability in the internal area of the arena.
Covariate(Level)βSERelative Risk of Visit Probability, Exp(β)Zp-Value
Treatment(propolis)−0.360.2200.70−1.620.105
(rock powder and propolis)−0.650.2360.52−2.7630.006
(rock powder)−0.370.2200.69−1.6910.091
(copper oxychloride)−0.390.2220.68−1.7650.078
(copper sulphate)−0.030.2070.97−0.140.888
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Daher, E.; Cinosi, N.; Chierici, E.; Rondoni, G.; Famiani, F.; Conti, E. Field and Laboratory Efficacy of Low-Impact Commercial Products in Preventing Olive Fruit Fly, Bactrocera oleae, Infestation. Insects 2022, 13, 213. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects13020213

AMA Style

Daher E, Cinosi N, Chierici E, Rondoni G, Famiani F, Conti E. Field and Laboratory Efficacy of Low-Impact Commercial Products in Preventing Olive Fruit Fly, Bactrocera oleae, Infestation. Insects. 2022; 13(2):213. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects13020213

Chicago/Turabian Style

Daher, Elissa, Nicola Cinosi, Elena Chierici, Gabriele Rondoni, Franco Famiani, and Eric Conti. 2022. "Field and Laboratory Efficacy of Low-Impact Commercial Products in Preventing Olive Fruit Fly, Bactrocera oleae, Infestation" Insects 13, no. 2: 213. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects13020213

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop