澳大利亚现有和改进的果蝇监测陷阱的现场评价(双翅目:蝗科)。

Geoffrey W Brown, Melissa L Starkie, Elizabeth V Fowler, Mark J Blacket, Jane E Royer, David G Mayer, Natalia M Souza, Jodie Cheesman, Brendan Missenden, Mitchell Irvine, Mark K Schutze
{"title":"澳大利亚现有和改进的果蝇监测陷阱的现场评价(双翅目:蝗科)。","authors":"Geoffrey W Brown, Melissa L Starkie, Elizabeth V Fowler, Mark J Blacket, Jane E Royer, David G Mayer, Natalia M Souza, Jodie Cheesman, Brendan Missenden, Mitchell Irvine, Mark K Schutze","doi":"10.1093/jee/toaf085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Exotic fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) surveillance in Australia predominantly relies on male-lure trapping. We assessed the performance of 3 traps currently used in Australian fruit fly surveillance: Lynfield, Modified Steiner, and Paton; against 3 improved versions: Enhanced Steiner, Enhanced Paton, and Enhanced Paton-10 mm. Laboratory trials revealed existing traps failed to exclude rain, and drained poorly, which guided our trap modifications. These modified traps were field-tested across 2 seasons and 4 locations in tropical and subtropical areas, with trap efficacy measured by total flies trapped, quality of fly DNA by real-time PCR, and weatherability observations. During the dry season, the Enhanced Paton trap outperformed all other traps in terms of fruit fly catch rates, a trend that continued in the wet season. While there was no discernible variation in DNA quality among flies caught by the 6 trap types, wet trap contents negatively affected DNA quality, with the incidence of wet trap catches influenced by trap design. No wet flies were observed in the Enhanced Paton trap, a result of the modifications made, which included a 3° entrance tube with a 42° angled roof. Overall, the Enhanced Paton trap proved to be a superior alternative to existing designs, offering higher fly capture rates and better-quality specimens for both morphological and molecular identification.</p>","PeriodicalId":94077,"journal":{"name":"Journal of economic entomology","volume":" ","pages":"1344-1353"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12167848/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Field assessment of current and improved surveillance traps for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Australia.\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey W Brown, Melissa L Starkie, Elizabeth V Fowler, Mark J Blacket, Jane E Royer, David G Mayer, Natalia M Souza, Jodie Cheesman, Brendan Missenden, Mitchell Irvine, Mark K Schutze\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jee/toaf085\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Exotic fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) surveillance in Australia predominantly relies on male-lure trapping. We assessed the performance of 3 traps currently used in Australian fruit fly surveillance: Lynfield, Modified Steiner, and Paton; against 3 improved versions: Enhanced Steiner, Enhanced Paton, and Enhanced Paton-10 mm. Laboratory trials revealed existing traps failed to exclude rain, and drained poorly, which guided our trap modifications. These modified traps were field-tested across 2 seasons and 4 locations in tropical and subtropical areas, with trap efficacy measured by total flies trapped, quality of fly DNA by real-time PCR, and weatherability observations. During the dry season, the Enhanced Paton trap outperformed all other traps in terms of fruit fly catch rates, a trend that continued in the wet season. While there was no discernible variation in DNA quality among flies caught by the 6 trap types, wet trap contents negatively affected DNA quality, with the incidence of wet trap catches influenced by trap design. No wet flies were observed in the Enhanced Paton trap, a result of the modifications made, which included a 3° entrance tube with a 42° angled roof. Overall, the Enhanced Paton trap proved to be a superior alternative to existing designs, offering higher fly capture rates and better-quality specimens for both morphological and molecular identification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of economic entomology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1344-1353\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12167848/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of economic entomology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaf085\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of economic entomology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toaf085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚对外来果蝇(双翅目:蝗科)的监测主要依靠雄性诱捕法。我们评估了澳大利亚目前用于果蝇监测的3种诱捕器的性能:Lynfield、Modified Steiner和Paton;3个改进版本:增强型斯坦纳,增强型帕顿和增强型帕顿-10毫米。实验室试验表明,现有的捕集器不能排除雨水,排水能力差,这指导了我们对捕集器的改进。这些改进的诱捕器在热带和亚热带地区的4个地点进行了2个季节的现场试验,通过捕获的苍蝇总数、实时PCR的苍蝇DNA质量和耐候性观察来衡量诱捕器的效果。在旱季,增强型佩顿诱捕器在果蝇捕获率方面优于所有其他诱捕器,这一趋势在雨季仍在继续。6种诱捕器捕获的蝇类DNA质量无明显差异,但湿诱捕器的含量对DNA质量有负向影响,湿诱捕器的捕获率受诱捕器设计的影响。改进后的帕顿诱捕器中没有观察到湿蝇,改进后的帕顿诱捕器包括一个3°的入口管和一个42°的倾斜顶板。总的来说,增强型帕顿诱捕器被证明是现有设计的优越选择,提供更高的苍蝇捕获率和更高质量的形态学和分子鉴定标本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Field assessment of current and improved surveillance traps for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Australia.

Exotic fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) surveillance in Australia predominantly relies on male-lure trapping. We assessed the performance of 3 traps currently used in Australian fruit fly surveillance: Lynfield, Modified Steiner, and Paton; against 3 improved versions: Enhanced Steiner, Enhanced Paton, and Enhanced Paton-10 mm. Laboratory trials revealed existing traps failed to exclude rain, and drained poorly, which guided our trap modifications. These modified traps were field-tested across 2 seasons and 4 locations in tropical and subtropical areas, with trap efficacy measured by total flies trapped, quality of fly DNA by real-time PCR, and weatherability observations. During the dry season, the Enhanced Paton trap outperformed all other traps in terms of fruit fly catch rates, a trend that continued in the wet season. While there was no discernible variation in DNA quality among flies caught by the 6 trap types, wet trap contents negatively affected DNA quality, with the incidence of wet trap catches influenced by trap design. No wet flies were observed in the Enhanced Paton trap, a result of the modifications made, which included a 3° entrance tube with a 42° angled roof. Overall, the Enhanced Paton trap proved to be a superior alternative to existing designs, offering higher fly capture rates and better-quality specimens for both morphological and molecular identification.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信