3066 Creating a novel lure-and-kill device for Queensland fruit fly

Transcription

1 3066 Creating a novel lure-and-kill device for Queensland fruit fly Tony Clarke A/Prof, Queensland University of Technology Plant Biosecurity Cooperative esearch Centre biosecurity built on science

2 Team Queensland University of Technology - Tony Clarke, Paul Cunningham, Mark Schutze, Jaye Newman, Owen Webb, Thilini Ekanayake The University of Queensland - Bronwyn Cribb, Mike Furlong Ongoing support of Qld DAFF biosecurity built on science

3 Problem being addressed Bactrocera tryoni is Australia s worst insect pest of horticulture. If uncontrolled the fly can cause significant crop loss. The fly is a major impediment to domestic and international market access. Well documented changes in pesticide use permits (D&F) and loss of area freedoms means new controls are needed. biosecurity built on science

4 Problem being addressed Lure-and-kill is a powerful tool for male fruit fly control, but ability to control females still weak. Female targeted protein bait sprays have low attractancy and need to be applied weekly. We are looking to develop a novel lure-and-kill device for female Qfly, based on combining fruit odour chemicals and visual attractants. This approach is used for hagoletis pomonella control in the U.S.A., and a cucumber based odour lure is attractive to both melon fly (B. curcurbitae) and cucumber fly (B. cucumis). biosecurity built on science

5 Who will use research? Users of research will be product developers to take the research product(s) to commercial scale trials. biosecurity built on science

6 Who will directly benefit from the research? Growers, emergency response workers biosecurity built on science

7 esults so far biosecurity built on science

8 ipe Stage 1 ipe Stage 2 biosecurity built on science

9 esults so far A complex odour blend based on ripe guava volatiles, and reduced subsets of the same chemicals, attracts females (and also males) in large flight cages. biosecurity built on science

10 esults so far Data credit Dr Paul Cunningham biosecurity built on science

11 esults so far a) b) c) d) Photo credits Dr Mark Schutze biosecurity built on science

12 Challenges and issues arising from the research Technical challenges in deployment (how/when/ where) and ongoing research. Issues - Crisis response to the double train wreck leading to poorly coordinated research efforts, duplication of research, unrealistic research time-lines. - As all fruit fly research is now commerical orientated, it is all locked up under IP in the grant phase. This is creating wedges between labs that didn t previously exist. biosecurity built on science

13 Prospects for success Depends on definition for success. We defined success as a lure more attractive and operationally easier to use than protein bait sprays prospects are probably good. A silver bullet for fruit fly no. biosecurity built on science

14 Thank you This project receives significant co-funding from HAL, through HAL Project SF12013: Fruit fly IPM for Summerfruit, with a focus on developing an effective female lure-and-kill device For more information, please a.clarke@qut.edu.au biosecurity built on science

15 Integrative taxonomy and resolution of pest species in the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex A/Prof Anthony. Clarke et al. Queensland University of Technology Brisbane, Queensland, Australia CICOS No J

16 Team members QUT: Mark Schutze, Matt Krosch, Tony Clarke CSIO/QUT: Stephen Cameron Lincoln University: Karen Armstrong, Laura Boykin NSW DPI: Toni Chapman, Anna Chomič, Anna Englezou, Deb Hailstones, Andrew Jessup CICOS No J

17 Bactrocera dorsalis complex In a 1994 revision, Drew & Hancock revised the members of the complex from SE Asia Most famously they erected B. papayae, B. carambolae and B. philippinensis, which form a true sibling complex with B. dorsalis s.s. In 2005, B. invadens Drew, Tsuruta & White was described from Kenya and added to this group CICOS No J

18 The operational problem Morphologically and genetically similar, with substantial intra-specific variation Thoracic colour variation within B. dorsalis (source: Leblanc et al. 2013) Thoracic colour variation within B. invadens (source: Drew et al. 2005) CICOS No J

19 The operational problem obust diagnostics are not available for these taxa Is failure to develop robust diagnostics a failure of the diagnostics? Or is it because these species have been taxonomically split too far and there is nothing to differentiate? CICOS No J

20 Lines of evidence examined Characters Morphology Aedeagus length Wing shape Postsuttural lateral vitae width Thoracic colour pattern Abdominal colour pattern Aculeus spicules Molecular genetics Multi-gene phylogeny cox1 haplotype (pop genetics) Microsatellites (pop genetics) Cytogenetics Polytene chromosones Sexual compatibility Pre-zygotic compatibility Post-zygotic compatibility Chemoecology ectal gland extracts after ME feeding CICOS No J

21 Morphology As recognised by the species authors, significant morphological variation in colour of thorax CICOS No J

22 Molecular genetics Multi-locus Nuclear mtdna Outgroups Within complex Outside complex CICOS No J

23 B. dorsalis (Thai) vs B. carambolae B. dorsalis (China) vs B. invadens B. dorsalis (Pak.) vs B. invadens B. papayae vs B. philippinensis B. dorsalis (Thai) vs B. philippinensis B. dorsalis (Thai) vs B. papayae Mean ISI (+/- 95% C.I.) CICOS No J

24 B. dorsalis compared with: Morphology Character B. papayae/philippinensis B. invadens B. carambolae Aedeagus length Clinal variation Clinal variation Sympatric populations significantly different Wing shape Clinal variation Clinal variation Sympatric populations significantly different Post-suttural lateral vittae Same Clinal variation Same Thoracic color pattern Abdominal color pattern Variable with overlap; often indistinguishable Variable with overlap; often indistinguishable Variable with overlap; often indistinguishable Variable with overlap; often indistinguishable Variable with overlap; often indistinguishable B. carambolae with consistent typical pattern Aculeus spicules Variable with overlap Not compared Variable with overlap Molecular genetics Cytogenetics Sexual compatibility Chemoecology Multi-locus phylogeny cox1 haplotype network (pop genetics) Microsatellite (pop genetics) Polytene chromosomes Pre-zygotic compatibility Post-zygotic compatibility ectal gland extracts after ME feeding Same monophyletic clade Same monophyletic clade eciprocally monophyletic Shared haplotypes Shared haplotypes No shared haplotypes Panmictic Not compared Not compared Identical Identical Different Fully random mating Fully random mating Non-random assortative mating Hybrids viable and fertile Hybrids viable and fertile educed hybrid viability Identical Identical Different CICOS No J

25 Current position Lack of any distinct differences, except for population level variation, between B. dorsalis, B. papayae, B. philippinensis and B. invadens lead us to believe: These taxa are all different names for the one biological species B. dorsalis Evidence supports B. carambolae remaining a distinct, albeit closely related, species CICOS No J

26 Current position Drew & omig (2013) synonymised B. philippinensis with B. papayae In a paper currently under review, we (and half the world) have proposed synonymy of B. papayae and B. invadens with B. dorsalis Schutze, M.K., Aketarawong, N., Amornsak, W., Armstrong, K., Augustinos, A., Barr, N., Bo, W., Bourtzis, K. Boykin, L., Caceres, C., Cameron, S., Chapman, T.; Chinvinijkul, S., Chomic, A., De Meyer, M., Drosopoulou, E., Englezou, A., Ekesi, S., Gariou-Papalexiou, A., Geib, S., Hailstones, D., Hasanuzzaman, H., Haymer, D., Hee, A., Hendrichs, J., Jessup, A., Ji, Q., Khamis, F., Krosch, M., Leblanc, L., Mahmood, K., Malacrida, A., Mavragani-Tsipidou, P., Mwatawala, M., Nishida,., Ono, H., eyes, J., ubinoff, D., San Jose, M., Shelly, T., Srikachar, S., Tan, K., Thanaphum, S., Ul Haq, I., Vijaysegaran, S., Wee, S., Yesmin, F., Zacharopoulou, A., & Clarke A.. (submitted) Synonymization of key pest species within the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae): taxonomic changes based on 20 years of integrative morphological, molecular, cytogenetic, behavioral, and chemoecological data. Systematic Entomology: under review. CICOS No J

27 Implications of name changes All authors are mindful of the enormous implications of these name changes for pre-harvest management, market access and quarantine The decision is not made lightly, nor without compelling evidence Acceptance of the name changes is ultimately a political one, but the IPPC s Commission on Phytosanitary Standards, under advice from expert panel(s), will play a key role CICOS No J

28 New work generated (entirely or in part) through CCNPB & PBCC Krosch, M.N., Schutze, M.K., Armstrong, K.F., Graham, G.C., Yeates, D.K. & Clarke, A.. (2012). A molecular phylogeny for the Tribe Dacini (Diptera: Tephritidae): Systematic and biogeographic implications. Mol. Phyl. & Evol. 64: Schutze, M.K., et al. (2012) Wing shape as a potential discriminator of morphologically similar pest taxa within the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae). Bull. Ent. es., 102, Schutze, M.K., et al. (2012) Population structure of Bactrocera dorsalis s.s., B. papayae and B. philippinensis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in southeast Asia: evidence for a single species hypothesis using mitochondrial DNA and wing-shape data. BMC Evol. Biol., 130. Krosch, M.N., et al. (2013) Piecing together an integrative taxonomic puzzle: microsatellite, wing shape and aedeagus length analyses of Bactrocera dorsalis s.l. (Diptera: Tephritidae) find no evidence of multiple lineages in a proposed contact zone along the Thai/Malay Peninsula. Syst. Ent., 38, CICOS No J

29 New work generated (entirely or in part) through CC Schutze, M.K., et al. (2013) Mating compatibility among four pest members of the Bactrocera dorsalis fruit fly species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Ent., 106, Bo, W., et al. (2014) Mating compatibility between Bactrocera invadens and Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 107: Boykin, L.M., et al. (2014) Multi-gene phylogenetic analysis of south-east Asian pest members of the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae) does not support current taxonomy. J. Appl. Ent. 138: Clarke, A.. & Schutze, M.K. (in press). The complexities of knowing what it is you are trapping. In: Trapping Tephritid Fruit Flies for Detection, Control, and egulation. (eds Shelly T., Epsky N., Jang E., eyes-flores J., & Vargas.), Springer Dordrecht Netherlands. Schutze, M.K., et al. (in review) One and the same: integrative taxonomic evidence that the African Invasive Fruit Fly Bactrocera invadens (Diptera: Tephritidae), is the same species as the Oriental Fruit Fly Bactrocera dorsalis. Syst. Ent. in review. CICOS No J

30 New work generated (entirely or in part) through CC Schutze, M.K., et al. et al. et al. (in review) Synonymization of key pest species within the Bactrocera dorsalis species complex (Diptera: Tephritidae): taxonomic changes based on 20 years of integrative morphological, molecular, cytogenetic, behavioural, and chemoecological data. Syst. Ent. in review. CICOS No J