Review of surveillance systems for tephritid fruit fly threats in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States

Abstract

Many countries conduct fruit fly surveillance but, while there are guidelines, practices vary widely. This review of some countries in the Pacific region demonstrates the diversity of fruit fly surveillance practices. All utilize 3 parapheromones-trimedlure, cuelure, and methyl eugenol-to trap adult male fruit flies. Some target species are not attracted to these compounds so other attractants such as food-based lures are used in certain areas or circumstances. Lure loading and replacement cycles depend on the target species and the local climate. Malathion and dichlorvos (DDVP) are commonly used toxicants, but not in all countries, and other toxicants are being developed to replace these older-generation pesticides. Jackson and Lynfield are commonly used trap designs but newer designs such as cone and Biotrap are being adopted. Local factors such as chemical registrations and climate affect the choice of trap, lure, dispenser, toxicant, and bait concentration. These choices affect the efficacy of traps, in turn influencing optimal trap deployment in space and time. Most states now follow similar practices around trap inspection, servicing, and data handling, but these processes will be disrupted by emerging automated trap technologies. Ultimately, different practices can be attributed to the unique fruit fly risk profiles faced by each state, particularly the suite of fruit flies already present and those that threaten from nearby. Despite the diversity of approaches, international trade in fruit continues with the assurance that fruit fly surveillance practices evolve and improve according to each country's risk profile and incursion experience.

Keywords: biosecurity; lures; parapheromones; toxicants; trapping.