Differential responses of Bactrocera dorsalis and its parasitoids to headspaces of different varieties of tree-attached mango fruits and the associated chemical profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) is a major pest of fruits and vegetables worldwide with documented losses of up to 100%. Various management techniques including the use of parasitoids, such as Fopius arisanus (Sonan) and Diachasmimorpha longicaudata (Ashmead) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) within the context of the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach have been deployed for its control. The effectiveness of parasitoids is well understood, but knowledge of the semiochemicals that mediate their behavior, as well as that of the host fruit fly to tree-attached mangoes, is lacking. Here, we first compared the attractiveness of the above-mentioned fruit fly and its parasitoids to volatiles of different treatments (non-infested physiologically mature unripe and ripe mangoes, mangoes newly exposed to ovipositing B. dorsalis, and mangoes on day 7 and day 9 post-oviposition) of tree-attached Kent, Apple, and Haden mango varieties relative to control (clean air). The fruit fly was significantly more attracted to the mango volatiles (up to 93% of responsive insects) compared to the control (clean air). Fopius arisanus was significantly more attracted to mangoes with ovipositing fruit flies (68–76%) while D. longicaudata was significantly more attracted to day 9 post-oviposited mangoes (64–72%) compared to the control. Secondly, we elucidated the headspace volatile profiles of the non-infested and infested tree-attached mangoes using gas chromatography linked to mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The volatiles revealed various types of organic compounds with qualitative and quantitative differences. The majority of the compounds were esters making 33.8% of the total number, followed by sesquiterpenes-16.4%, and monoterpenes-15.4% among others. Most compounds had higher release rates in headspace volatiles of fruit fly-infested mangoes. Lastly, we harvested the infested mangoes and incubated them for puparia recovery. The number of puparia recovered varied according to the mango variety with Apple mango registering 81.7% of the total, while none was recovered from Kent. These results represent the first report of the changes in the headspace components of non-infested and infested tree-attached mangoes and the associated differential responses of the mentioned insects. A follow-up study can reveal whether there is a convergence in olfactomes which is significant when developing baits that selectively attract the fruit fly and not its natural enemies and fill the knowledge gap from an evolutionary ecological perspective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".