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}
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.