Next Article in Journal
Genome-Wide Exploration of the WD40 Gene Family in Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) and Analysis of Its Function in Fruit Color Formation
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Trap Type and Height on the Captures of the Pink Bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), in Pheromone-Baited Traps in Cotton
Previous Article in Journal
The Combined Analysis of the Transcriptome and Metabolome Revealed the Possible Mechanism of Flower Bud Formation in Amorphophallus bulbifer
Previous Article in Special Issue
Low-Temperature-Induced Winter Dormancy in a Predatory Stink Bug Eocanthecona furcellata (Wolff) in the Subtropics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 3
10.3390/agronomy14030520
agronomy-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

Trichopria anastrephae: A Promising Neotropical-Native Parasitoid for Drosophila suzukii Control

by
María Josefina Buonocore-Biancheri
1,
Lorena del Carmen Suárez
2,3,
Segundo Ricardo Núñez-Campero
4,5,
Marcos Darío Ponssa
1,
Flávio Roberto Mello Garcia
6,
Daniel Santiago Kirschbaum
7,8 and
Sergio Marcelo Ovruski
1,*
1
Planta Piloto de Procesos Industriales Microbiológicos y Biotecnología (PROIMI-CONICET), Biological Control Department, Avenida Belgrano y Pasaje Caseros, San Miguel de Tucumán T4001MVB, Argentina
2
Dirección de Sanidad Vegetal, Animal y Alimentos de San Juan (DSVAA)-Gobierno de la Provincia de San Juan, Nazario Benavides 8000 Oeste, Rivadavia, San Juan J5413ZAD, Argentina
3
CCT CONICET San Juan, Avenida Libertador General San Martín 1109, San Juan J5400AR, Argentina
4
Centro Regional de Investigaciones Científicas y Transferencia Tecnológica de La Rioja (CRILAR-CONICET), Entre Ríos y Mendoza s/n, Anillaco, La Rioja 5301, Argentina
5
Departamento de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales, Instituto de Biología de la Conservación y Paleobiología, Universidad Nacional de La Rioja (UNLaR), Avenida Luis de la Fuente s/n, Ciudad de La Rioja, La Rioja 5300, Argentina
6
Departamento de Ecologia, Zoologia e Genética, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas 96000, RN, Brazil
7
INTA Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Famaillá, Tucumán Ruta Provincial 301, km 32, Famaillá 4132, Argentina
8
Cátedra Horticultura, Facultad de Agronomía, Zootecnia y Veterinaria, Universidad Nacional de Tucumán, San Miguel de Tucumán 4000, Argentina
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(3), 520; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030520
Submission received: 30 January 2024 / Revised: 28 February 2024 / Accepted: 29 February 2024 / Published: 2 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ecological Aspects as a Basis for Future Pest Integrated Management)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) is an invasive pest mainly affecting berry and stone fruit crops worldwide. In Argentina, it inhabits fruit-growing regions. An eco-friendly management strategy involves biological control by using resident natural enemies, such as the Neotropical-native pupal parasitoid Trichopria anastrephae Lima (Ta). The study compared the host-killing capacity and the offspring reproductive success of two Ta lineages on the puparia of both D. suzukii (Ds) and D. melanogaster (Dm) in no-choice and choice tests under laboratory conditions. The host preference and host-switching behaviors were also assessed. One parasitoid lineage was reared on Ds (TaDs), and the second on Dm (TaDm). In no-choice tests, both Ta lineages performed similarly on both hosts regarding the percentage of killed hosts and parasitoid offspring survival. The host-killing ability of TaDm was only significantly lower when Ds was offered as a host, relative to Dm. In choice tests, Ta attacked mainly Ds at a 4–9 times Ds to Dm ratio, but at a 1.5–2 times Ds to Dm ratio, the host-killing ability was similar between both drosophilids. At an equal host ratio or higher Dm ratios, Ta preferred the native host. However, it was determined that Ta has the potential to parasitize the recently-introduced pest.

1. Introduction

Invasions of alien species into new regions usually produce adverse economic, ecological, and social effects [1,2]. The globalized trade of agricultural commodities is among the leading causes of the significant expansion of crop pests over the last decades, threatening worldwide food security [3], which leads to rigorous governmental strategies to either avoid the introduction of invasive species or implement large-scale eradication programs whenever prevention fails [4,5]. In that regard, the distribution range of the spotted-wing drosophila (SWD), Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) (Diptera: Drosophilidae), a polyphagous fruit pest native to Southeast Asia, has rapidly expanded in the last decade and became a severe pest in Europe [6], the Americas [7], and throughout Asia [8]. Drosophila suzukii is currently a significant pest of berries and stone fruit production worldwide [9]. This invasive pest damages mainly soft-skinned fruit such as Vaccinium spp. (blueberry) (Ericaceae), Fragaria spp. (strawberry), Rubus spp. (raspberry and blackberry), and Prunus spp. (cherry, peach, apricot, and plum) (Rosaceae) [10]. In addition, numerous wild and ornamental non-crop fruits have been infested by D. suzukii worldwide [11,12,13,14]. Unlike other drosophilid flies, the D. suzukii female oviposits through the skin of fresh, healthy, and ripening fruits still on the plant due to its serrated and sclerotized ovipositor [15]. Consequently, the larvae cause unmarketable fruit, resulting in high losses to the fruit industry in many countries [16].
Drosophila suzukii invaded Argentina in 2014, spreading throughout fruit-growing regions with highly contrasting climatic conditions, from the humid subtropical rainforests of the north to the semi-desert highlands and lowlands of western and southern Argentina [17]. Such swift expansion could result from two invasion events originating from countries that recorded the pest previously, such as the USA and Brazil [18]. The high environmental adaptability and behavioral and physiological plasticity make D. suzukii particularly suited to changing habitats and climatic conditions [19].
Soft fruits, such as berries and cherries, are among the most critical groups of high commercial value fruits that have increased their regional expansion, production, marketing, and export in Argentina. Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) exports in 2020 reached 11,000 t, accounting for USD 110 million in revenues [20]. Strawberries (Fragaria×ananassa Duch.), raspberries (Rubus idaeus L.), blackberries (R. fruticosus L. and R. ulmifolius Schott), and cherries (Prunus avium L.) are also highly produced in Argentina [17,21]. The high population growth, thermal plasticity, and broad host range make D. suzukii a significant risk to Argentina’s soft fruit industry. Although there are few published records of damage caused by this pest, the known data are highly worrisome [17].
Successful Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs involve an understanding the basic ecology of the target species in both the agroecosystem and the surrounding non-crop areas [22]. Key aspects, such as natural mortality factors influencing pest population dynamics, are essential for implementing control tactics by using biocontrol agents [23,24], and taking into account the heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes [25]. In this regard, several resident parasitoid species have been associated with D. suzukii worldwide [10,26,27,28,29], but few can overcome its robust immune system [30,31]. Therefore, resident parasitoids with the highest chance of successfully developing on D. suzukii are pupal parasitoids [32,33,34]. Among these parasitoids, Trichopria anastrephae Lima (Diapriidae) and Pachycrepoideus vindemiae Rondani (Pteromalidae) were the most abundant species parasitizing D. suzukii in non-crop areas of the Argentinian northwestern fruit-growing region [35]. The diapriid T. anastrephae is a native species to the South American Neotropical region, and it was recorded for Brazil and Argentina from saprophytic drosophilids and D. suzukii [36]. It is an endoparasitoid because the egg is placed into the hemocoel of the host pupa [37]. In contrast, the ectoparasitoid P. vindemiae is a cosmopolitan species, highly polyphagous, attacking a wide variety of cyclorrhaphous dipterans [38].
Native parasitoids can display genetic variations for host choice and use [39], which is mainly associated with variation in both the physiological and behavioral components of host foraging [40] and through superparasitism [41]. Such novel settings may encourage native parasitoids to include the novel host in their host range through physiological compatibility [42], inducing host switching, i.e., parasitism on the most abundant host available in a choice setting [41,43,44]. Some generalist parasitoid species may display a host-switching behavior to increase their reproductive success [45]; therefore, host preferences may change according to the relative abundance of involved host species [43].
The aims of this study were to compare both the host-killing capacity and the offspring reproductive success of two population lineages of T. anastrephae on puparia of D. suzukii, a novel host, and D. melanogaster, a resident host, in no-choice and choice tests under laboratory conditions. Likewise, the host preference and host switching were compared in choice tests. We hypothesized that regardless of host origin, the two lineages of T. anastrephae, one of them laboratory-reared on D. suzukii and the other one on D. melanogaster, could both kill D. suzukii puparia and successfully develop in the new host. Secondly, the mortality of D. suzukii puparia caused by T. anastrephae would not be affected by the presence of D. melanogaster host puparia in the same habitat. The results are discussed in relation to the feasibility of using T. anastrephae in biological control programs against D. suzukii within an IPM strategy.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Insects Rearing

The colonies of D. suzukii, D. melanogaster, and T. anastrephae used in the assays were originated from puparia collected from fallen non-crop peaches (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) in wilderness areas during summer (December) 2019 in Horco Molle (26°55′ S, 65°05′ W, 600–800 elevation), Tucumán province, northwestern Argentina. Drosophilid and parasitoid colonies were kept at 25 ± 1 °C, 75 ± 5% RH, and 12:12 (L:D) h photoperiod at the Pest Biological Control Department (DCBP, Spanish acronym) from the Biotechnology and Microbiological Industrial Processes Pilot Plant (PROIMI, Spanish acronym), in San Miguel de Tucumán, Tucumán, Argentina. Two T. anastrephae population lines were used in the trials. One of them was reared on D. suzukii puparia (TaDs), whereas the second population line was reared on D. melanogaster puparia (TaDm). Flies and parasitoids were held in cubical Plexiglas rearing cages (30 cm) with voile screen-covered sidewalls. Adult parasitoids were fed with honey every other day. Adult flies were fed daily with an artificial diet consisting of enzymatically hydrolyzed yeast (MP Biomedicals, LLC, Solon, OH, USA), corn gluten meal (Grupo Arcor S.A., La Reducción, Lules, Tucumán, Argentina), and standard white cane sugar (Ledesma SAAI, Libertador General San Martin, Jujuy, Argentina) in plastic Petri dishes (10 × 1.5 cm, diameter/deep) with a double layer of towel paper. Water was provided ad libitum by 200 mL plastic bottles with yellow absorbent cloth wicks. Four 140 mL disposable plastic cups, with 50 mL larval diet, were used as oviposition devices in each rearing cage. The larval diet was made of corn flour (32.5 g), brewer’s yeast (18.5 g), cane sugar (52.5 g), agar-agar (8 g), absolute ethyl alcohol 99.5% (15 mL), vitamin C (1 g), vitamin E (1 g), and Nipagin (methyl 4-hydroxybenzoate) (1.6 g). Agar-agar and corn flour were dissolved in 200 mL and 800 mL of water, respectively. Such ingredient proportions are enough for 500 g of diet. After 24 h, each oviposition device was removed, covered with a cotton voile cloth, and placed in an empty Plexiglass cage. Six days later, puparia were extracted from the larval diet, washed with a 10% sodium benzoate (Pura Química Laboratory, Córdoba, Argentina), and purified water solution. Then, puparia were placed in 500 mL hinged plastic cups with 5.5 cm2 of vermiculite (Intersum®, Aislater S.R.L., Córdoba, Argentina) previously sterilized on the bottom as a pupation substrate. These cups were placed in new adult-rearing cages. The procedure was carried out for each drosophilid species. One-day-old host puparia were exposed to parasitoid females for 48 h on 90 mm laboratory filter paper (Cytiva, Shanghai, China) moistened with distilled water inside plastic Petri dishes. The T. anastrephae population lines used in the trials were the 40th generation under artificial rearing.

2.2. Experimental Setup

No-choice and choice tests were conducted in an 8 m2 room at the DCBP, under the aforementioned controlled laboratory conditions. The no-choice tests were performed to assess both the parasitoid’s host-killing capacity (parasitoid performance) and the ability to produce parasitoid surviving offspring (reproductive success) when D. suzukii and D. melanogaster puparia were singly exposed to parasitoid females from each population lineage. Experiments consisted of five naïve, i.e., never exposed to host puparia, 5-day-old, mated TaDs or TaDm females exposed to 50 D. suzukii or D. melanogaster puparia for two days. As previously described, one-day-old puparia of D. suzukii or D. melanogaster were provided to parasitoids. Cubical Plexiglas experimental cages (15 cm) with voile screen-covered sidewalls were used for each treatment. Control tests (no parasitoids) were performed simultaneously with treatments to check natural fly mortality and emergence rates. Once the 48 h exposition period ended, Petri dishes were removed from each experimental cage, and host puparia were placed in hinged lid plastic cups with sterilized vermiculite on the bottom. Puparia were kept in cups until adult flies or parasitoids emerged. Ten replicates per treatment and a control were performed. One week after parasitoid emergence, non-emerged host puparia were dissected to corroborate parasitism. A Leica® EZ4D 40× stereomicroscope (Wetzlar, Germany) was used for dissections. The number and sex of the parasitoids, the number of flies, and the number of non-emerged puparia were recorded. Parasitoid performance was calculated using Abbott’s percent-corrected host mortality [46], which allows for calculating the parasitoid’s host-killing capacity through the relationship between host emergence rates from experimental treatment and control tests. Parasitoid reproductive success was based on the parasitoid offspring emergence, which was calculated as the total number of emerged parasitoids divided by the total number of exposed host puparia. The parasitoid offspring sex ratio was calculated as the percentage of live females recovered from the number of emerged parasitoids.
The dual-choice tests were performed to assess the parasitoid’s host-killing capacity and reproductive success, and also the host species preference and host switching behavior when different proportions of D. suzukii and D. melanogaster puparia were simultaneously offered to parasitoid females from both population lineages. Experiments consisted of five naïve 5-day-old, mated TaDs or TaDm females exposed to 50 host puparia for 48 h, but at nine different ratios of D. suzukii and D. melanogaster, as follows: 45:5, 40:10, 35:15, 30:20, 25:25, 20:30, 15:35, 10:40, and 5:45. Puparia of both D. suzukii and D. melanogaster were placed together in the same standard-size plastic petri dish. Trials were carried out using the same procedure as described above. Drosophila suzukii puparia can be easily distinguished from the D. melanogaster puparia by the external shape of the anterior spiracles, which have two tubes with plumose-shaped tips on the top [33]. The number and sex of the parasitoids and the number of flies and non-emerged puparia were recorded. Treatments and controls were replicated 10 times. Parasitoid performance and reproductive success (parasitoid emergence rate) were determined. The host species preference was calculated using the formula E1/E2 = C × N1/N2, as described by [47], where C, a constant, is the preference index for a host species in equal abundance based on the proportion of attacked hosts, which in the current study was 25:25. N1 and N2 are the numbers of two host species, i.e., N1 = D. suzukii and N2 = D. melanogaster, offered to the parasitoid. E1 and E2 are the observed numbers of the two host species parasitized, i.e., host parasitism. When the C value is =0 or <1, the preferred host species is #2; when the C value is >1, the preferred host species is #1, but when the C value is =1, there is no preference [48]. Parasitism was calculated as the emerged parasitoids plus non-emerged parasitoids derived from host puparia dissection, divided by the number of offered host puparia. The host-switching behavior was tested to establish whether parasitism was low when a host was uncommon [44]. The switching trials were assessed using the formula P1 = C × F1/(1 − F1 + C × F1), as described by [49], where F1 is the proportion of the host species #1, i.e., D. suzukii, in a particular trial. The P1 parameter is the expected ratio of the host species #1 among all parasitized hosts, and C is the constant described above. When host switching occurs, the observed parasitized ratio (E1/E2) is higher than expected at a given N1/N2 value [50].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

In order to compare the parasitoid’s host-killing capacity, the reproductive success, the parasitoid offspring sex ratio, and the host switch index for both TaDs and TaDm population lineages, Kruskal–Wallis’ rank sum tests were performed, with Dunn’s post hoc pairwise comparison tests to look for differences between factor levels using the Bonferroni–Holm method for adjustment. Mann–Whitney–Wilcoxon tests were performed with a Bonferroni–Holm adjustment method to compare the host preference index between TaDs and TaDm population lineages. The R-4.3.2 statistical software was used for analysis [51]. The box plots were plotted to show the resulting data, which involve median (horizontal line inside the box), mean (X inside the box), interquartile range Q1–Q3 (bottom and top ends of the box), range (minimum: Q0, maximum: Q4; both ends of the whisker on the vertical line outside the box), and raw data dispersal (colored circles). Letters that display the significant difference in figures were included with the R-library ‘rcompanion’ function.

3. Results

3.1. Parasitoid Performance and Reproductive Success

There were significant but small differences when the host-killing effectiveness of T. anastrephae was evaluated under no-choice conditions (H(3, n = 40) = 13.384, p = 0.004). The performance of TaDm when D. suzukii was offered as a host was significantly lower than that of TaDm when D. melanogaster was the host (Figure 1A). There were no significant differences between T. anastrephae population lineages regarding their performance parasitizing either D. suzukii or D. melanogaster (Figure 1A). The host-killing capacity of T. anastrephae was >80% in all four treatments. There were no significant differences between the reproductive success of the two T. anastrephae population lineages or when both fly species were exposed to parasitoid females (H(3, n = 40) = 3.811, p = 0.283). The mean offspring survival in both parasitoid lineages varied between 50% and 70% (Figure 1B).
There were significant differences between choice treatments when comparing the host-killing capacity of the TaDm lineage (H(17, n = 180) = 118.248, p < 0.001). The killing capacity of the parasitoid on D. suzukii was significantly higher than the D. melanogaster-killing parasitoid ability when only the ratio of D. suzukii puparia was from 4- to 9-fold higher than that from D. melanogaster (Figure 2A). However, when the D. suzukii puparia ratio was 1.5- and 2-fold higher than that of D. melanogaster, the parasitoid’s host-killing capacity was similar for both drosophilid hosts; although when the D. suzukii:D. melanogaster ratio was =1 or <1, females of the TaDm lineage killed significantly more puparia of D. melanogaster than D. suzukii puparia (Figure 2A). The reproductive success of the TaDm lineage differed significantly between treatments (H(17, n = 180) = 126.723, p < 0.001). The parasitoid’s surviving offspring sourced from D. suzukii puparia was higher than that coming from D. melanogaster at 2–9 D. suzukii puparia per D. melanogaster puparium ratio (Figure 2B). When the D. suzukii puparia ratio was 1.5-times higher than D. melanogaster there were no significant differences between the TaDm surviving offspring from both host species. In contrast, when the D. suzukii:D. melanogaster ratio was =1 or <1, the parasitoid offspring that emerged from D. suzukii puparia was significantly lower than that from D. melanogaster puparia (Figure 2B).
Similarly to the results with the TaDm lineage, there were significant differences between choice treatments when comparing the performance of the TaDs lineage (H(17, n = 180) = 141.553, p < 0.001). The TaDs female had a significantly higher capacity to kill D. suzukii puparia when its proportion was 4- and 9-fold higher than for D. melanogaster (Figure 3A). The TaDs lineage performance was similar for the two hosts at ratios of 1.5- and 2-fold more D. suzukii puparia than D. melanogaster, but at D. suzukii:D. melanogaster puparia ratios =1 or <1 there was significantly higher mortality of D. melanogaster puparia (Figure 3A). The reproductive success of the TaDs lineage differed significantly between treatments (H(17, n = 180) = 133.622, p < 0.001), and also exhibited a similar trend to that of the TaDm lineage concerning tested D. suzukii:D. melanogaster puparia ratios. When D. suzukii puparia ratios were 2-, 4- and 9-fold higher than that from D. melanogaster puparia, there was a significantly higher emergence of parasitoid offspring from D. suzukii puparia (Figure 3B). When the D. suzukii puparia ratio was 1.5-fold higher than D. melanogaster there was similar TaDs offspring emergence from both drosophilid hosts. In contrast, at D. suzukii:D. melanogaster puparia ratios =1 or <1, the TaDs offspring from D. suzukii puparia was significantly lower than that from D. melanogaster puparia (Figure 3B).
The offspring sex ratio of the two T. anastrephae lineages was similar in both choice and non-choice tests (Table 1). Trichopria anastrephae mainly exhibited a female-biased sex ratio (1.1–1.8:1 females per male), and there was no significant difference in offspring sex ratio when choice tests were compared with each other (H(8, n = 360) = 12.760, p = 0.120).

3.2. Host Preference and Switching Indexes

In the treatment with an equal proportion of D. suzukii and D. melanogaster, the parasitism ratio on both drosophilid hosts ranged from 0.55 (0.50–0.61, 0.40–0.67) (Median, IQR (25th–75th percentiles), and minimum and maximum data (range)) for TaDm lineage to 0.56 (0.54–0.63, 0.50–0.69) for TaDs lineage. The “C” index was <1, indicating a preference of T. anastrephae for D. melanogaster. Statistical comparison between both parasitoid lineages indicated no significant differences (U = 116.0, n = 10, p = 0.427).
In treatments with unequal proportions of D. suzukii and D. melanogaster, the observed parasitism was significantly higher than expected at 45:5 and 40:10 D. suzukii:D. melanogaster ratios for both parasitoid lineage (Table 2), showing that host switching occurred in both host proportions, in which T. anastrephae preferentially attacked D. melanogaster. The observed and expected parasitism were not significantly different at 35:15 and 20:30 D. suzukii:D. melanogaster ratios for either parasitoid lineage (Table 2), which means that T. anastrephae attacked indifferently one or another host. The expected parasitism was significantly higher than observed at the 30:20 D. suzukii:D. melanogaster ratio for both parasitoid lineages (Table 2). This suggests that the host switch did not occur because T. anastrephae mainly attacked D. melanogaster, despite a higher proportion of D. suzukii puparia. The observed parasitism was significantly higher than expected at 15:35, 10:40, and 5:45 D. suzukii:D. melanogaster ratios for both parasitoid lineages (Table 2). These findings indicate that the host switch occurred because T. anastrephae primarily attacked D. melanogaster over D. suzukii.

4. Discussion

The current study provides information on the D. suzukii-killing capacity of T. anastrephae for two parasitoid lineages faced with D. suzukii and the native host D. melanogaster, and the subsequent parasitoid reproductive success in terms of the offspring’s survival. Based on these parameters, the study reports host preference and host-switching behavior at various ratios of D. suzukii and D. melanogaster.
The results show that regardless of the population lineage, T. anastrephae performed similarly well on D. suzukii and D. melanogaster with regard to the percentage of killed hosts and offspring survival when there was no choice between hosts. The high mortality of D. suzukii recorded in these tests supports previous studies on parasitism levels of a T. anastrephae Brazilian population line on D. suzukii under laboratory conditions [37,52,53,54,55] and in greenhouse trials [56]. Similarly, Trichopria drosophilae Perkins, another resident pupal parasitoid found parasitizing D. suzukii in North America [57,58], Central America [59], Europe [60,61,62], and Asia [63] is also able to induce high mortality of D. suzukii puparia.
The results also revealed that both lineages of T. anastrephae mainly focused on attacking D. suzukii puparia at very high proportions of this host relative to D. melanogaster in choice situations. However, at higher proportions but no more than twice as many D. suzukii over D. melanogaster, T. anastrephae females attacked both hosts equally. At equal proportions of both hosts, T. anastrephae focused its attack on D. melanogaster, but the parasitoid intensified its parasitism on D. melanogaster at higher proportions of native host over the exotic host in choice tests. In contrast to the present study, the cosmopolitan T. drosophilae showed a slight preference to parasitize D. suzukii puparia than Drosophila immigrans Sturtevant or D. melanogaster puparia in laboratory studies when the same host-to-host ratio was assessed [63]. However, the percentages of T. drosophilae male and female offspring recorded from D. suzukii puparia individually compared with those emerged from D. immigrans were similar [63]. These results suggest that T. drosophilae, like T. anastrephae, is naturally associated with saprophytic drosophilids. However, the larger size of the D. suzukii puparium compared to that of D. melanogaster appears to be a factor driving the host preference of T. drosophilae for D. suzukii [57,58,63,64,65]. That would not be the case with T. anastrephae; despite the small size of D. melanogaster puparium, the parasitoid prefers it in an equal host-choice condition. Other biological factors may be influencing host preference by T. anastrephae. Probably, olfactory cues associated with the native host puparium play a relevant role in host searching behavior of T. anastrephae, in addition to the host-habitat (fruit) olfactory stimuli, which have a significant influence in the long-range host location [56].
The preference for D. melanogaster displayed by the T. anastrephae in the current studies matches with field survey data recorded from non-crop fruits in wild environments from northwestern Argentina [26,27]. Those wilderness areas involved patches of secondary structure Yungas subtropical rainforest with a mix of feral exotic fruits plus native fruit species. Field studies found that T. anastrephae parasitized more resident saprophytic drosophilid puparia than D. suzukii. However, it is worth noting that an extremely high abundance of saprophytic drosophilids over D. suzukii was always present in the fallen fruits surveyed [27]. Therefore, that a disproportional natural relationship between D. melanogaster and D. suzukii puparia likely influenced the host preference displayed by T. anastrephae, as evidenced by the results of the current tests. There was only host switching to D. suzukii when the host ratio was 80–90% D. suzukii over D. melanogaster. These findings are supported by differences in the evolutionary history between T. anastrephae and both hosts because it is a Neotropical-native parasitoid species [66] coevolved in sympatry with saprophytic drosophilid species, such as those of the D. melanogaster group [26]. This may account for the close trophic association between T. anastrephae and non-pest saprophytic drosophilids, whereas a new trophic association was recently established with D. suzukii. Although T. anastrephae quickly adapted to D. suzukii, the prevalence of puparia from native drosophilid hosts inside fallen fruit in natural environments may reduce the effectiveness of this resident parasitoid on the exotic pest [26]. However, the results of the current study show that although T. anastrephae preferred D. melanogaster in a choice condition at equal host ratios, T. anastrephae was an effective natural enemy as it achieved mortality rates on D. suzukii between 40% and 42%. Even at host ratios where D. suzukii was disadvantaged, close to 50% of the D. suzukii puparia were parasitized by T. anastrephae, and the parasitoid offspring was always female-biased. Such findings are significant because they highlight T. anastrephae as an important D. suzukii mortality agent. In both Drosophila species studied, the host mortality caused by T. anastrephae was high. An additional mortality factor might be due to superparasitism, particularly when considering the relationship between the low density of exposed hosts and the long host exposure time in the tests. For the current study, verifying whether the host mortality was also caused by superparasitism was not achievable. However, a second step of the study has been planned to ascertain whether superparasitism influenced high host mortality levels reported herein.
Recent studies [35] showed that T. anastrephae can also forage D. suzukii puparia outside the fruit pulp, where saprophytic dipteran puparia do not prevail. Thus, T. anastrephae can parasitize D. suzukii puparia in less competitive microhabitats, such as the ground beneath fallen feral peaches and guavas in non-crop areas [35]. Previous studies have shown that most D. suzukii larvae pupate on the ground beneath fallen fruit [57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68], and puparia can be attacked by pupal parasitoids [56,69]. These earlier published data, plus information from the current study, reveal that T. anastrephae may exert mortality over D. suzukii puparia isolated on the ground. Augmentative releases [60] or conservation biological control [70] are strategies that can be focused from a D. suzukii area-wide integrated management approach [36,71]. Sustainable pest management must focus on landscape biodiversity conservation and enhanced natural control [72].

5. Conclusions

The results suggest that T. anastrephae was effective in killing D. suzukii based on its performance relative to the pest and producing reproductively successful offspring. Given the preference of T. anastrephae for resident saprophytic drosophilids, the concurrent presence of those hosts in equal or higher ratios to that of D. suzukii in the same microhabitat influenced on the performance of the parasitoid. However, the mortality of D. suzukii by T. anastrephae under such conditions was significant. Optimizing important biological traits can be explored through selective rearing in studies based on the experimental adaptation of resident parasitoids on D. suzukii. This would provide a more specific biological control agent targeted at the pest.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy14030520/s1. File S1: Raw Data-Host ratio Treatments; File S2: Raw Data-Host preferences; File S3: Raw Data-Parasitoid sex ratios.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P., F.R.M.G., D.S.K. and S.M.O.; Data curation, M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P. and S.M.O.; funding acquisition, D.S.K. and S.M.O.; Formal Analysis, S.R.N.-C. and S.M.O.; Investigation, M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P., F.R.M.G., D.S.K. and S.M.O.; Methodology, M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P., F.R.M.G., D.S.K. and S.M.O.; project administration, D.S.K. and S.M.O.; Resources, D.S.K. and S.M.O.; Software, S.R.N.-C.; Supervision, S.M.O.; Validation, M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P., F.R.M.G., D.S.K. and S.M.O.; Visualization, M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P., F.R.M.G., D.S.K. and S.M.O.; writing—original draft preparation; M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P., F.R.M.G., D.S.K. and S.M.O.; writing—review and editing, M.J.B.-B., L.d.C.S., S.R.N.-C., M.D.P., F.R.M.G., D.S.K. and S.M.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Agencia Nacional de Promoción de la Investigación, el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la Innovación. The number of the grants are PICT2017-0512 and PICT2020-01050.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in Supplementary Materials here and at http://hdl.handle.net/11336/227479 from CONICET, Argentina (accessed on 20 February 2024).

Acknowledgments

We thank Patricia Colombres and Guillermo Borchia (PROIMI-CONICET) for laboratory assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pimentel, D.; McNair, S.; Janecka, J.; Wightman, J.; Simmonds, C.; O’Connell, C.; Wong, E.; Russel, L.; Zern, J.; Aquino, T.; et al. Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 84, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Perrings, C.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Touza, J.; Williamson, M. How to manage biological invasions under globalization. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 212–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Myers, J.H.; Simberloff, D.; Kuris, A.M.; Carey, J.R. Eradication revisited: Dealing with exotic species. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000, 15, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hulme, P.E.; Pysek, P.; Nentwig, W.; Vila, M. Will threat of biological invasions unite the European Union? Science 2009, 324, 40–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Simberloff, D. We can eliminate invasions or live with them. Successful management projects. Biol. Invasions 2009, 11, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Asplen, M.K.; Anfora, G.; Biondi, A.; Choi, D.S.; Chu, D.; Daane, K.M.; Gibert, P.; Gutierrez, A.P.; Hoelmer, K.A.; Hutchison, W.D.; et al. Invasion biology of spotted-wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii): A global perspective and future priorities. J. Pest Sci. 2015, 88, 469–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Garcia, F.R.M.; Lasa, R.; Funes, C.F.; Buzzetti, K. Drosophila suzukii management in Latin America: Current status and perspectives. J. Econ. Entomol. 2022, 115, 1008–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bieńkowski, A.O.; Orlova-Bienkowskaja, M.J. Invasive agricultural pest Drosophila suzukii (Diptera, Drosophilidae) appeared in the Russian Caucasus. Insects 2020, 11, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, J.; Zheng, Y.; Fan, L.; Wang, W. Surveys of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and its host fruits and associated parasitoids in northeastern China. Insects 2022, 13, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kirschbaum, D.S.; Funes, C.F.; Buonocore-Biancheri, M.J.; Suárez, L.; Ovruski, S.M. The biology and ecology of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). In Drosophila Suzukii Management; Garcia, F.R.M., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 41–91. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lee, J.C.; Dreves, A.J.; Cave, A.M.; Kawai, S.; Isaacs, R.; Miller, J.C.; Van Timmeren, S.; Bruck, D.J. Infestation of wild and ornamental non-crop fruits by Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 2015, 108, 117–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kenis, M.; Tonina, L.; Eschen, R.; van der Sluis, B.; Sancassani, M.; Mori, N.; Haye, T.; Helsen, H. Non-crop plants used as hosts by Drosophila suzukii in Europe. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 735–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bal, H.K.; Adams, C.; Grieshop, M. Evaluation of of-season potential breeding sources for spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii Matsumura) in Michigan. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 2466–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Grassi, A.; Gottardello, A.; Dalton, D.T.; Tait, G.; Rendon, D.; Ioriatti, C.; Gibeaut, D.; Rossi Stacconi, M.V.; Walton, V.M. Seasonal reproductive biology of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in temperate climates. Environ. Entomol. 2018, 47, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Atallah, J.; Teixeira, L.; Salazar, R.; Zaragoza, G.; Kopp, A. The making of a pest: The evolution of a fruit-penetrating ovipositor in Drosophila suzukii and related species. Proc. R. Soc. B 2014, 281, 20132840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. De Ros, G.; Grassi, A.; Pantezzi, T. Recent Trends in the Economic Impact of Drosophila suzukii. In Drosophila suzukii Management; Garcia, F.R.M., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 11–28. [Google Scholar]
  17. Buonocore-Biancheri, M.J.; Kirschbaum, D.S.; Suárez, L.; Ponssa, M.D.; Ovruski, S.M. Drosophila suzukii in Argentina: State of the art and further perspectives. Neotrop. Entomol. 2024, 53, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Little, C.M.; Chapman, T.W.; Kirk, H.N. Plasticity is key to success of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) invasion. J. Insect Sci. 2020, 20, 1049–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De la Vega, G.J.; Corley, J.C. Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) distribution modelling improves our understanding of pest range limits. Int. J. Pest. Manag. 2019, 65, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Funes, C.F.; Escobar, L.I.; Dadda, G.E.; Villagrán, M.E.; Olivera, G.I.; Gastaminza, G.G.; Kirschbaum, D.S. Occurrence and population fluctuations of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in blueberry crops of subtropical Argentina. Acta Hortic. 2023, 1357, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. SAGP (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca). Frutos de Hueso: Cereza, Informe Sectorial del Ministerio de Economía, República Argentina; Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería y Pesca de la República Argentina: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2022. Available online: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/fles/sagyp/informe_sectorial_2021_cereza.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2024).
  22. Liburd, O.E.; Rhodes, E.M. Management of Drosophila suzukii in berry crops. In Drosophila suzukii Management; Garcia, F.R.M., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 241–253. [Google Scholar]
  23. Donatelli, M.; Magarey, R.D.; Bregaglio, S.; Willocquet, L.; Whish, J.P.; Savary, S. Modelling the impacts of pests and diseases on agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 2017, 155, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schmidt, J.M.; Whitehouse, T.S.; Green, K.; Krehenwinkel, H.; Schmidt-Jeffris, R.; Sial, A.A. Local and landscape-scale heterogeneity shape spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) activity and natural enemy abundance: Implications for trophic interactions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 272, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vasseur, C.; Joannon, A.; Aviron, S.; Burel, F.; Meynard, J.-M.; Baudry, J. The cropping systems mosaic: How does the hidden heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes drive arthropod populations? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 166, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Buonocore-Biancheri, M.J.; Suárez, L.; Kirschbaum, D.S.; Garcia, F.R.M.; Funes, C.F.; Ovruski, S.M. Natural parasitism influences biological control strategies against both global invasive pests Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) and Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), and the Neotropical-native pest Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae). Environ. Entomol. 2022, 51, 1120–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Buonocore-Biancheri, M.J.; Wang, X.G.; Núñez-Campero, S.R.; Suárez, L.; Schliserman, P.; Ponssa, M.D.; Kirschbaum, D.S.; Garcia, F.R.M.; Funes, C.F.; Ovruski, S.M. The population dynamics and parasitism rates of Ceratitis capitata, Anastrepha fraterculus, and Drosophila suzukii in non-crop hosts: Implications for the management of pest fruit flies. Insects 2024, 15, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, X.G.; Daane, K.M.; Hoelmer, K.A.; Lee, J.C. Biological control of spotted-wing drosophila: An update on promising agents. In Drosophila suzukii Management; Garcia, F.R.M., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 143–168. [Google Scholar]
  29. Abram, P.K.; Wang, X.G.; Hueppelsheuser, T.; Franklin, M.T.; Daane, K.M.; Lee, J.C.; Lue, C.H.; Girod, P.; Carrillo, J.; Wong, W.H.L.; et al. A coordinated sampling and identification methodology for larval parasitoids of spotted-wing drosophila. J. Econ. Entomol. 2022, 115, 922–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kacsoh, B.Z.; Schlenke, T.A. High hemocyte load is associated with increased resistance against parasitoids in Drosophila suzukii, a relative of D. melanogaster. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e34721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Poyet, M.; Havard, S.; Prevost, G.; Chabrerie, O.; Doury, G.; Gibert, P.; Eslin, P. Resistance of Drosophila suzukii to the larval parasitoids Leptopilina heterotoma and Asobara japonica is related to haemocyte load. Physiol. Entomol. 2013, 38, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chabert, S.; Allemand, R.; Poyet, M.; Eslin, P.; Gibert, P. Ability of European parasitoids (Hymenoptera) to control a new invasive Asiatic pest, Drosophila suzukii. Biol. Control 2012, 63, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mazzetto, F.; Marchetti, E.; Amiresmaeili, N.; Sacco, D.; Francati, S.; Jucker, C.; Dindo, M.L.; Lupi, D.; Tavella, L. Drosophila parasitoids in northern Italy and their potential to attack the exotic pest Drosophila suzukii. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 837–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kaçar, G.; Wang, X.G.; Biondi, A.; Daane, K.M. Linear functional response by two pupal Drosophila parasitoids foraging within single or multiple patch environments. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Buonocore-Biancheri, M.J.; Núñez-Campero, S.R.; Suárez, L.; Ponssa, M.D.; Kirschbaum, D.S.; Garcia, F.R.M.; Ovruski, S.M. Implications of the niche partitioning and coexistence of two resident parasitoids for Drosophila suzukii management in non-crop areas. Insects 2023, 14, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Garcia, F.R.M. Basis for area-wide management of Drosophila suzukii in Latin America. In Drosophila suzukii Management; Garcia, F.R.M., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 93–110. [Google Scholar]
  37. da Costa Oliveira, D.; Stupp, P.; Martins, L.N.; Wollmann, J.; Santos Geisler, F.C.; Cardoso, T.D.N.; Bernardi, D.; Garcia, F.R.M. Interspecific competition in Trichopria anastrephae parasitism (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) and Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae) parasitism on pupae of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Phytoparasitica 2021, 49, 207–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wang, X.G.; Messing, R.H. The ectoparasitic pupal parasitoid, Pachycrepoideus vindemmiae (Hymenoptera: Pteromalidae), attacks other primary tephritid fruit fly parasitoids: Host expansion and non-target impact. Biol. Control 2004, 31, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Benoist, R.; Capdevielle-Dulac, C.; Chantre, C.; Jeannette, R.; Calatayud, P.A.; Drezen, J.M.; Dupas, S.; Le Rouzic, A.; Le Ru, B.; Moreau, L.; et al. Quantitative trait loci involved in the reproductive success of a parasitoid wasp. Mol. Ecol. 2020, 29, 3476–3493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pannebakker, B.A.; Garrido, N.R.T.; Zwaan, B.J.; Van Alphen, J.J.M. Geographic variation in host-selection behaviour in the Drosophila parasitoid Leptopilina clavipes. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2008, 127, 48–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kruitwagen, A.; Beukeboom, L.W.; Wertheim, B.; van Doorn, G.S. Evolution of parasitoid host preference and performance in response to an invasive host acting as evolutionary trap. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kruitwagen, A.; Wertheim, B.; Beukeboom, L.W. Artificial selection for non-reproductive host killing in a native parasitoid on the invasive pest, Drosophila suzukii. Evol. Appl. 2021, 14, 1993–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rezaei, M.; Talebi, A.A.; Tazerouni, Z. Parasitoids: The role of host preference and host specificity in biological control. In Parasitoids Biology, Behavior and Ecology; Donnelly, E., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  44. Biondi, A.; Wang, X.G.; Daane, K.M. Host preference of three Asian larval parasitoids to closely related Drosophila species: Implications for biological control of Drosophila suzukii. J. Pest Sci. 2021, 94, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Murdoch, W.W. Switching in general predators: Experiments on predator specificity and stability of prey population. Ecol. Monogr. 1969, 39, 335–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rosenheim, J.A.; Hoy, M.A. Confidence intervals for the Abbott’s formula correction of bioassay data for control response. J. Econ. Entomol. 1989, 82, 331–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sherratt, T.N.; Harvey, I.F. Frequency-dependent food selection by arthropods: A review. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 1993, 48, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fellowes, M.D.; van Alphen, J.J.; Jervis, M.A. Foraging behaviour. In Insects as Natural Enemies: A Practical Perspectives; Jervis, M.A., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 1–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chesson, P.L. Variable predators and switching behavior. Theor. Popul. Biol. 1984, 26, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Murdoch, W.W.; Marks, J.R. Predation by coccinellid beetles: Experiments on switching. Ecology 1973, 54, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. R Core Team. The R Project for Statistical Computing; R. Foundat Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2023; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  52. Vieira, J.G.A.; Krüger, A.P.; Scheuneumann, T.; Morais, M.C.; Speriogin, H.S.; Garcia, F.R.M.; Nava, D.E.; Bernardi, D. Some aspects of the biology of Trichopria anastrephae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae), a resident parasitoid attacking Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Brazil. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 113, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Vieira, J.G.A.; Krüger, A.P.; Scheunemann, T.; Garcez, A.M.; Morais, M.C.; Garcia, F.R.M.; Nava, D.E.; Bernardi, D. Effect of temperature on the development time and lifetime fecundity of Trichopria anastrephae parasitizing Drosophila suzukii. J. Appl. Entomol. 2020, 114, 857–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Krüger, A.P.; Scheunemann, T.; Vieira, J.G.A.; Morais, M.C.; Bernardi, D.; Nava, D.E.; Garcia, F.R.M. Effects of extrinsic, intraspecific competition and host deprivation on the biology of Trichopria anastrephae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) reared on Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2019, 48, 957–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Krüger, A.P.; Garcez, A.M.; Scheunemann, T.; Bernardi, D.; Nava, D.E.; Garcia, F.R.M. Reproductive biology of Trichopria anastrephae Lima (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae), a biological control agent of Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Krüger, A.P.; Garcez, A.M.; Scheunemann, T.; Bernardi, D.; Nava, D.E.; Garcia, F.R.M. Trichopria anastrephae as a biological control agent of Drosophila suzukii in strawberries. Neotrop. Entomol. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, X.G.; Kaçar, G.; Biondi, A.; Daane, K.M. Life-history and host preference of the pupal parasitoid Trichopria drosophilae of spotted wing drosophila. BioControl 2016, 61, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, X.G.; Kaçar, G.; Biondi, A.; Daane, K.M. Foraging efficiency and outcomes of interactions of two pupal parasitoids attacking the invasive spotted wing drosophila. Biol. Control 2016, 96, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gonzalez-Cabrera, J.; Moreno-Carrillo, G.; Sanchez-Gonzalez, J.A. Single and combined release of Trichopria drosophilae (Hymenoptera: Diapriidae) to control Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Neotrop. Entomol. 2019, 48, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rossi Stacconi, M.V.; Grassi, A.; Ioriatti, C.; Anfora, G. Augmentative releases of Trichopria drosophilae for the suppression of early season Drosophila suzukii populations. BioControl 2019, 64, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wolf, S.; Boycheva-Woltering, S.; Romeis, J.; Collatz, J. Trichopria drosophilae parasitizes Drosophila suzukii in seven common non-crop fruits. J. Pest Sci. 2020, 93, 627–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wolf, S.; Barmettler, E.; Eisenring, M.; Romeis, J.; Collatz, J. Host searching and host preference of resident pupal parasitoids of Drosophila suzukii in the invaded regions. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Yi, C.; Cai, P.; Lin, J.; Liu, X.; Ao, G.; Zhang, Q.; Xia, H.; Yang, J.; Ji, Q. Life history and host preference of Trichopria drosophilae from Southern China, one of the effective pupal parasitoids on the Drosophila species. Insects 2020, 11, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Wang, X.G.; Serrato, M.A.; Son, Y.; Walton, V.M.; Hogg, B.N.; Daane, K.M. Thermal performance of two indigenous pupal parasitoids attacking the invasive Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Environ. Entomol. 2018, 47, 764–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Rossi Stacconi, M.V.R.; Buffington, M.; Daane, K.M.; Dalton, D.T.; Grassi, A.; Kaçar, G.; Miller, B.; Miller, J.C.; Baser, N.; Ioriatti, C.; et al. Host stage preference, efficacy and fecundity of parasitoids attacking Drosophila suzukii in newly invaded areas. Biol. Control 2015, 84, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. De la Vega, G.J.; Triñanes, F.; González, A. Effect of Drosophila suzukii on blueberry VOCs: Chemical cues for a pupal parasitoid, Trichopria anastrephae. J. Chem. Ecol. 2021, 47, 1014–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Woltz, M.J.; Lee, J.C. Pupation behavior and larval and pupal biocontrol of Drosophila suzukii in the field. Biol. Control 2017, 110, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bezerra Da Silva, C.S.; Park, K.R.; Blood, R.A.; Walton, V.M. Intraspecific competition affects the pupation behavior of Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii). Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 7775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gabarra, R.; Riudavets, J.; Rodríguez, G.A.; Pujade-Villar, J.; Arno, J. Prospects for the biological control of Drosophila suzukii . BioControl 2015, 60, 331–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Landis, D.A.; Wratten, S.D.; Gurr, G.M. Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2000, 45, 175–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Haye, T.; Girod, P.; Cuthbertson, A.G.S.; Wang, X.G.; Daane, K.M.; Hoelmer, K.A.; Baroffio, C.; Zhang, J.P.; Desneux, N. Current SWD IPM tactics and their practical implementation in fruit crops across different regions around the world. J. Pest Sci. 2016, 89, 643–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bianchi, F.J.J.A.; Booij, C.J.H.; Tscharntke, T. Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: A review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 273, 1715–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agronomy 14 00520 g001
Figure 1. Percentage of host-killing capacity (Drosophila suzukii and D. melanogaster) (A) and offspring survival (B) of two Trichopria anastrephae population lineages under no-choice tests. Meaning of abbreviations: TaDs − Ds = T. anastrephae reared on D. suzukii and recovered from D. suzukii puparia, TaDm − Ds = T. anastrephae reared on D. melanogaster and recovered from D. suzukii puparia, TaDs − Dm = T. anastrephae reared on D. suzukii and recovered from D. melanogaster puparia, TaDm − Dm = T. anastrephae reared on D. melanogaster and recovered from and recovered from D. melanogaster puparia. The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test).
Figure 1. Percentage of host-killing capacity (Drosophila suzukii and D. melanogaster) (A) and offspring survival (B) of two Trichopria anastrephae population lineages under no-choice tests. Meaning of abbreviations: TaDs − Ds = T. anastrephae reared on D. suzukii and recovered from D. suzukii puparia, TaDm − Ds = T. anastrephae reared on D. melanogaster and recovered from D. suzukii puparia, TaDs − Dm = T. anastrephae reared on D. suzukii and recovered from D. melanogaster puparia, TaDm − Dm = T. anastrephae reared on D. melanogaster and recovered from and recovered from D. melanogaster puparia. The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test).
Agronomy 14 00520 g001
Agronomy 14 00520 g002
Figure 2. Percentage of host-killing capacity (A) and offspring survival (B) of the Trichopria anastrephae population lineage reared on D. melanogaster (TaDm) at different D. suzukii (Ds):D. melanogaster (Dm) ratios under choice tests. The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test).
Figure 2. Percentage of host-killing capacity (A) and offspring survival (B) of the Trichopria anastrephae population lineage reared on D. melanogaster (TaDm) at different D. suzukii (Ds):D. melanogaster (Dm) ratios under choice tests. The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test).
Agronomy 14 00520 g002
Agronomy 14 00520 g003
Figure 3. Percentage of host-killing capacity (A) and offspring survival (B) of the Trichopria anastrephae population lineage reared on D. suzukii (TaDs) at different D. suzukii (Ds):D. melanogaster (Dm) ratios under choice tests. The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test).
Figure 3. Percentage of host-killing capacity (A) and offspring survival (B) of the Trichopria anastrephae population lineage reared on D. suzukii (TaDs) at different D. suzukii (Ds):D. melanogaster (Dm) ratios under choice tests. The same lowercase letters indicate no significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test).
Agronomy 14 00520 g003
Table 1. Female offspring percentage (sex ratio) recorded from both Trichopria anastrephae lineages, one reared on Drosophila suzukii (TaDs) and the other one on Drosophila melanogaster (TaDm), at different ratios of D. suzukii (Ds) over D. melanogaster (Dm).
Table 1. Female offspring percentage (sex ratio) recorded from both Trichopria anastrephae lineages, one reared on Drosophila suzukii (TaDs) and the other one on Drosophila melanogaster (TaDm), at different ratios of D. suzukii (Ds) over D. melanogaster (Dm).
Parasitoid
Lineages/Host Species		Parasitoid Females Offspring Percentage (Median and Range);
(Treatments: Drosophila suzukii:Drosophila melanogaster Puparia Ratios)
No-Choice TestsChoice Tests
50:0/0:5045:540:1035:1530:2025:2520:3015:3510:405:45
TaDs − Ds47 (44−62) a57 (43−67) a57 (42−67) a51 (38−77) a60 (46−80) ab60 (50−100) ac65 (25−67) a67 (33–100) a50 (0–100) a100 (0–100) a
TaDm − Ds56 (46–61) a58 (46−70) a58 (46−70) a62 (46−73) a65 (46−80) a67 (40−80) a58 (40–80) a67 (50–67) a50 (33–100) a25 (0–100) a
TaDs − Dm52 (45–60) a0 (0−100) a58 (0−100) a58 (0−80) a55 (0−72) ab60 (0−67) ac59 (0–67) a59 (54–72) a56 (40–75) a59 (47–64) a
TaDm − Dm53 (43–61) a58 (0−100) a50 (0−100) a50 (0−80) a53 (0–67) b50 (0−75) bc51 (0–66) a64 (59–75) a50 (37–65) a58 (48–70) a
Statistical
results:
H=3.912.861.102.137.769.462.265.411.521.51
df=3333333333
n=40404040404040404040
p=0.2700.4100.7800.5500.050 *0.020 *0.5200.1400.6800.680
Different letters in the same column represent significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test). * Significant variation.
Table 2. Host switching behavior by two Trichopria anastrephae lineages, one reared on Drosophila suzukii (TaDs) and the other one on Drosophila melanogaster (TaDm), to different ratios of D. suzukii over D. melanogaster.
Table 2. Host switching behavior by two Trichopria anastrephae lineages, one reared on Drosophila suzukii (TaDs) and the other one on Drosophila melanogaster (TaDm), to different ratios of D. suzukii over D. melanogaster.
Observed (Obs)/
Expected (Exp) Parasitism		Switching Tests: Drosophila suzukii/Drosophila melanogaster Puparia Ratios
(Median and Range)
45:540:1035:1530:2020:3015:3510:405:45
TaDs − Obs2.5 (1.3–4.3) a1.6 (0.9–1.8) a1.3 (1.0−2.0) a0.8 (0.6–1.2) b0.6 (0.4–0.8) a0.5 (0.2–0.7) a0.3 (0.2–0.8) a0.3 (0.2–0.7) a
TaDm − Obs1.8 (1.2–3.8) a2.1 (1.0–3.3) a1.3 (0.9−2.7) a0.9 (0.8–1.3) b0.6 (0.4–0.8) a0.5 (0.3–0.7) a0.4 (0.2–0.8) a0.3 (0.3–0.6) a
TaDs − Exp−1.7 (−1.5–−3.5) b−3.0 (−2.0–−6.3) b −7.0 (−6.0−35.0) a2.5 (1.9–3.0) a0.5 (0.5–0.6) a0.3 (0.2–0.3) b0.2 (0.1–0.2) b0.1 (0.06–0.1) b
TaDm − Exp−1.6 (−0.8–−3.1) b−2.7 (−1.1–−5.0) b−2.5 (−2.3−35.0) a2.6 (2.1–6.0) a0.5 (0.4–0.6) a0.3 (0.2–0.3) b0.2 (0.1–0.2) b0.1 (0.05–0.1) b
Statistical
results:
H=29.67629.6571.44329.5192.04320.54418.17729.796
df=33333333
n=4040404040404040
p=<0.001 *<0.001 *=0.695<0.001 *=0.564<0.001 *<0.001 *<0.001 *
Obs/Exp results:Obs > ExpObs > ExpObs = ExpObs < ExpObs = ExpObs > ExpObs > ExpObs > Exp
Different letters in the same column represent significant differences at p > 0.05 (Dunn’s test). * Significant variation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Buonocore-Biancheri, M.J.; Suárez, L.d.C.; Núñez-Campero, S.R.; Ponssa, M.D.; Mello Garcia, F.R.; Kirschbaum, D.S.; Ovruski, S.M. Trichopria anastrephae: A Promising Neotropical-Native Parasitoid for Drosophila suzukii Control. Agronomy 2024, 14, 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030520

AMA Style

Buonocore-Biancheri MJ, Suárez LdC, Núñez-Campero SR, Ponssa MD, Mello Garcia FR, Kirschbaum DS, Ovruski SM. Trichopria anastrephae: A Promising Neotropical-Native Parasitoid for Drosophila suzukii Control. Agronomy. 2024; 14(3):520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030520

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buonocore-Biancheri, María Josefina, Lorena del Carmen Suárez, Segundo Ricardo Núñez-Campero, Marcos Darío Ponssa, Flávio Roberto Mello Garcia, Daniel Santiago Kirschbaum, and Sergio Marcelo Ovruski. 2024. "Trichopria anastrephae: A Promising Neotropical-Native Parasitoid for Drosophila suzukii Control" Agronomy 14, no. 3: 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030520

APA Style

Buonocore-Biancheri, M. J., Suárez, L. d. C., Núñez-Campero, S. R., Ponssa, M. D., Mello Garcia, F. R., Kirschbaum, D. S., & Ovruski, S. M. (2024). Trichopria anastrephae: A Promising Neotropical-Native Parasitoid for Drosophila suzukii Control. Agronomy, 14(3), 520. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030520

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