Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T10:14:45.538Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improving olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae (Diptera: Tephritidae) adult and larval artificial diets, microflora associated with the fly and evaluation of a transgenic olive fruit fly strain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 October 2014

Polychronis Rempoulakis*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Applied Entomology, Department of Biology, University of Crete, PO Box 2208, Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Ioannis Dimou
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Applied Entomology, Department of Biology, University of Crete, PO Box 2208, Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Antonios Chrysargyris
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Applied Entomology, Department of Biology, University of Crete, PO Box 2208, Heraklion, Crete, Greece
Aris P. Economopoulos
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Applied Entomology, Department of Biology, University of Crete, PO Box 2208, Heraklion, Crete, Greece

Abstract

Research on the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) – rearing simplification, insect microflora and transgenic strain evaluation – yielded several findings: (1) incorporation of antibiotics in the adult diet is evidently not needed; (2) colonization appears to be easier when wild adults are collected from the field instead of using mature larvae emerging from field-collected infested olives; (3) a combination of standard solid starter with liquid (no cellulose powder) finisher impregnated in synthetic sponge larval diets was more promising compared with all-liquid diets; (4) molecular analysis revealed extensive differences in bacterial species associated with the fly between laboratory flies and strains from different olive varieties, as well as between strains originating from different seasons of the year; (5) when an enhanced green fluorescent protein transgenic strain was compared with the standard long mass-reared strain, it proved significantly inferior according to all quality control tests applied, i.e. egg production, egg hatch, larval-stage duration, pupal recovery, pupal weight, adult emergence and adult survival. The aforementioned findings are discussed in the context of mass rearing and quality requirements for more successful implementation of the sterile insect technique against this pest.

Information

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 2014 
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Mean number of eggs per live female per day on the egging substrates, with and without antibiotic, from wild olive fruit fly adults trapped with McPhail traps (initial ‘P’ generation). Reproduced from (Dimou et al., 2010), with permission.

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Mean number of eggs per live female per day on the egging substrates, with and without antibiotic, from olive fruit fly adults of the following ‘F1’ generation. Reproduced from (Dimou et al., 2010), with permission.

Figure 2

Fig. 3 Prolongation of the larval stage by 1–3 days observed with the liquid sponge cloth diets (B, C, D, E and F liquid diets with potassium sorbate concentrations at 100, 150, 200, 250 and 300% of the standard control diet, respectively; A = control solid diet). Each bar shows mean ± 1.0 SE. Bars show means.

Figure 3

Fig. 4 Percent egg–pupa recovery values of liquid sponge cloth diets (C = control solid diet, M = Mittler's liquid diet (Mittler and Tsitsipis, 1973), T50 = liquid diet with preservatives at 50% of the solid diet, T75 = liquid diet with preservatives at 75% of the solid diet, TS2 = liquid phase of the most recent solid diet)

Figure 4

Fig. 5 (colour online) Percent egg–pupa recovery of starter–finisher systems with a solid starter and a liquid finisher (C = standard single-composition solid diet, T = starter–finisher with cotton towelling as a liquid finisher, S = starter–finisher with a synthetic sponge cloth as a liquid finisher); bars with different letters differ at 0.05 level of significance (one-way ANOVA)

Figure 5

Table 1 Microorganisms isolated from different strains of the olive fruit fly by molecular analysis (reproduced from Chrysargyris et al., 2007, with permission)

Figure 6

Fig. 6 Female survival of the two strains, Laboratory (Lab) and transgenic (EGFP); six cages of each strain, 30 pairs of insects/cage, were used.

Figure 7

Fig. 7 (colour online) Percent egg–pupa recovery of the two strains, Laboratory (Lab) and transgenic (EGFP); 4000 eggs for each strain were used. Different letters stand for statistically significant difference (t-test F= 36.85; df = 1; P< 0.001).

Figure 8

Fig. 8 (colour online) Daily egg production by the females of the two strains, Laboratory (Lab) and transgenic (EGFP); six cages of each strain, 30 pairs of insects/cage, were used.

Figure 9

Fig. 9 Percent egg hatchability of the two strains, Laboratory (Lab) and transgenic (EGFP); 1600 eggs of each strain were used. Different letters stand for statistically significant difference (t-test F= 99.79; df = 1; P< 0.001).