Skip to main content
Article Open Access

Distribution and dispersal of adult spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), in organically grown strawberries in Florida

  • EMAIL logo , and
Published/Copyright: December 19, 2024
Download Article (PDF)
Florida Entomologist
From the journal Florida Entomologist Volume 107 Issue 1

Abstract

Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) is a vinegar fruit fly that infests ripening and ripe berries and other thin-skinned fruits in Europe and the Americas. Previous studies have identified numerous wild hosts and have documented movement into crops from these wild hosts. Other studies have documented higher numbers of D. suzukii in crops adjacent to wild hosts. We studied D. suzukii adult movement and distribution in strawberries at an organic research station plot away from alternate hosts in 2016–2017, and at an organic on-farm site with a woody field border in 2017–2018 and 2018–2019. On the research station trial traps were placed 5 m outside the north border of the field and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. The same design was used in the on-farm trials with the addition of traps along the woody border. Populations of D. suzukii on the research station trial were low and randomly distributed. In contrast, D. suzukii male and female numbers on the on-farm trial were higher in the woods border and strawberry field edge compared with numbers farther into the strawberry plot in both years. The trend was more pronounced for males, especially in 2018–2019. Implications for management of D. suzukii in strawberries are discussed.

Resumen

Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) es una mosca de la fruta del vinagre que infesta bayas maduras y otras frutas de piel fina en Europa y América. Estudios anteriores han identificado numerosos huéspedes silvestres y han documentado el movimiento de estos huéspedes silvestres hacia los cultivos. Otros estudios han documentado mayores cantidades de D. suzukii en cultivos adyacentes a huéspedes silvestres. Aquí, estudiamos el movimiento y la distribución de adultos de D. suzukii en fresas, en 2016–2017 para una parcela de investigación orgánica alejada de huéspedes alternativos, y en 2017–2018 y 2018–2019 para una granja orgánica con un borde de campo leñoso. En la parcela de investigación, las trampas se colocaron a 5 m fuera del borde norte del campo y a 5, 10, 20 y 40 m dentro del campo. Se utilizó el mismo diseño en la prueba en granja con la adición de trampas a lo largo del borde del bosque. Las poblaciones de D. suzukii en la parcela de la estación de investigación eran bajas y estaban distribuidas al azar. En contraste, en ambos años, el número de machos y hembras de D. suzukii en la prueba en granja fue mayor en el borde del bosque y en el borde del campo de fresas en comparación con el número de machos y hembras más adentro de la parcela de fresas. La tendencia fue más pronunciada para los machos, especialmente en 2018–2019. Además, se discuten las consecuencias para el manejo de D. suzukii en fresas.

Keywords: vinegar fruit fly; strawberry; SADIE
Palabras Clave: mosca de la fruta del vinagre; fresa; SADIE

1 Introduction

Spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae), is a serious invasive pest impacting the production of thin-skinned fruits throughout Europe (Calabria et al. 2012; Cini et al. 2012), North America (Hauser 2011; Lee et al. 2011a, 2011b; Walsh et al. 2011), and South America (Deprá et al. 2014). Unlike other drosophilids, which have a soft ovipositor and can only lay their eggs in overripe and rotting fruit, female D. suzukii lay their eggs in ripening and ripe fruit utilizing their heavily sclerotized, serrated ovipositor (Hauser 2011). The presence of a single larva can cause an entire shipment of fruit to be rejected. Crops impacted by this pest include blackberries, blueberries, cherries, grapes, raspberries, and strawberries (Bellamy et al. 2013).

Throughout its invaded range, current management practices for D. suzukii mainly rely on applications of insecticides (Bruck et al. 2011; Diepenbrock et al. 2016; Haviland and Beers 2012; Van Timmeren and Isaacs 2013). However, research into methods to reduce dependence on insecticides continues. Attract-and-kill technologies (Babu et al. 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Disi and Sial 2019; Klick et al. 2019; Urbaneja-Bernat et al. 2022) and biological control (Englert and Herz 2019; Ibouh et al. 2019) may reduce the number of insecticide applications needed in a season. Rendon and Walton (2019) found that D. suzukii survival was reduced if larvae pupated on top of sawdust mulch compared with below the mulch due to higher temperatures and lower relative humidity (RH).

Understanding the distribution and movement of D. suzukii within a crop and between the crop and the surrounding environment could lead to better timing and placement of insecticide applications. The surrounding environment is important because D. suzukii have numerous wild host plants (Lee et al. 2015; Little et al. 2017; Thistlewood et al. 2019). Proximity of wild hosts in the environment adjacent to crop fields can increase D. suzukii infestation in lowbush blueberries, Vaccinium angustifolium Ait. (Ericales: Ericaceae) (Ballman and Drummond 2017), grapes, Vitis spp. (Vitales: Vitaceae) (Santoiemma et al. 2019; WeiBinger et al. 2019), sweet cherries, Prunus avium L. (Rosales: Rosaceae) (Santoiemma et al. 2018), and raspberry, Rubus idaeus L. (Rosales: Rosaceae) (Klick et al. 2016). Leach et al. (2019) found that D. suzukii moved from surrounding honeysuckle, Lonicera spp. (Dipsacales: Caprifoliaceae), into a field of highbush blueberry, V. corymbosum L. (Ericales: Ericaceae).

Removing wild hosts would be impractical in most cases. However, border sprays could reduce D. suzukii populations in wild hosts, which could, in turn, reduce the number of insecticide sprays needed within the crop. This method was effective in a blackberry field in Florida (Iglesias and Liburd 2017b). Mass trapping at field borders has been used by some organic blueberry growers in Florida though the efficacy of this method is unknown (E. M. Rhodes personal observation).

Much of the research on the movement and distribution of D. suzukii has been centered around its activity from surrounding woodlands into conventional blueberry and raspberry plantings, tree crops (cherries) and vine crops (grapes) (Klick et al. 2016; Leach et al. 2019). Information on D. suzukii movement in an organic strawberry, Fragaria x ananassa Duchesne (Rosales: Rosaceae), system with and without surrounding vegetation is unavailable. The purpose of this study was to examine the distribution and movement of D. suzukii adults within organic strawberry fields with and without surrounding vegetation. The study was conducted at a research station in a strawberry field that was divided into plots and not bordered by woods on any side, and at an on-farm location where the strawberry field was continuous and bordered in the north by a large, wooded area.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Research station trial

This study was conducted during the 2016–2017 season at the University of Florida Plant Science Research and Education Unit (PSREU) in Citra, Marion county, Florida in the organic section (29.409365 °N, 82.144827 °W; Figure 1). The surrounding area, within a radius of ∼ 75 m, was unplanted land with various species of mown grass. The cropping season lasted from planting in early October through the end of March. The fruiting season began in December and continued through crop termination at the end of March. Before planting strawberries, soil samples were collected and sent to the Nematode Assay Lab in the University of Florida Entomology and Nematology Department in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida. They extract all nematodes from the soil, identify them to genus, and count them under a microscope. The two genera of interest to us were root-knot nematodes, Meloidogyne spp. (Tylenchida: Heterodridae), and sting nematodes, Belonolaimus spp. (Tylenchida: Belonolaimidae), which are strawberry pests in Florida. Neither genus was seen in the samples.

Figure 1: Map of the research station plot at the Citra Plant Science Research and Education Unit (Citra, Marion county, Florida) in 2016–2017. The strawberry field had 16 plots with four beds per plot. Letters indicate trap locations. See research station trial methods for details.
Figure 1:

Map of the research station plot at the Citra Plant Science Research and Education Unit (Citra, Marion county, Florida) in 2016–2017. The strawberry field had 16 plots with four beds per plot. Letters indicate trap locations. See research station trial methods for details.

Before transplanting strawberries, Nature Safe® 10-2-8 all season fertilizer (Nature Safe Natural & Organic Fertilizers, Cold Springs, Kentucky) was applied at the rate of 1,681 kg/ha. After transplanting, a 50/50 mix of fish fertilizer (5-1-1; N–P–K) and sodium nitrite (3-0-6; N–P–K) was applied weekly via fertigation at 0.58 kg/ha. For fungal disease management, applications of organically approved products were made 2 d before predicted rain events (Table 1). Applications included RootShield® Plus, applied through the drip irrigation at 1.1 kg/ha, in combination with either Actinovate® at 0.56 kg/ha, Double Nickel® at 3.36 kg/ha, Regalia® at 2.34 L/ha, or Serenade® Optimum at 1.5 L/ha applied as a foliar application.

Table 1:

List of fungicide products used for disease management and the application rate used (from the product label) for application to the strawberry field.

Brand Name Active ingredient Application type Application rate Manufacturer
Rootshield® plus WP Trichoderma harzianum Rifai strain T-22 and T. virens strain G-41 Root dip

Through drip irrigation		 47 ml/100 L water 1.1 kg/ha BioWorks®, Victor, New York
Actinovate® AG Streptomyces lydicus WYEC 108 Foliar 0.56 kg/ha Valent USA LLC, St. Louis, Missouri
Double Nickle® LC Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain D747 Foliar 3.36 kg/ha Certis USA LLC, Columbia, Maryland
Regalia® Extract of Reynoutria sachalinensis Foliar 2.34 L/ha Marrone® Bio Innovations, Davis, California
Serenade® optimum QST 713 strain of Bacillus subtillis Foliar 1.5 L/ha Bayer Cropscience LP, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Cueva® Copper octanoate (copper soap) Foliar 19 L/ha Certis USA LLC, Columbia, Maryland

Sixteen 6.1 × 1.5 m plots spaced 1.8 m apart, with 7.6 m alleys (buffer zones) between blocks were arranged in four blocks of four plots. Strawberry plugs were planted on 1 m wide, 15 cm high raised beds covered in black plastic mulch. The plugs were obtained from Production Lareault, Inc., Quebec, Canada. There were four beds in each plot. Each bed was planted with one of four different cultivars. The four cultivars included ‘Strawberry Festival’, ‘Florida Radiance’, ‘Sweet Sensation’, and Winterstar™. Cultivar location was randomized in each plot. There were 60 plants in each bed in two rows with a plant spacing of 30.5 cm.

Twenty Scentry spotted wing drosophila traps baited with Scentry SWD lures (Scentry Biologicals Inc. Billings, Montana) with a soapy water (5 % clear, scentless dish soap and 95 % tap water) drowning solution were placed in the field on 3 January 2017. The traps resemble plastic peanut butter jars with a red label and small holes in the sides for entry of flies. The lures consist of a plastic pouch containing a gel-like substance infused with a proprietary blend of fruit, plant, and fermentation volatiles. Lures were replaced every 4 wks. A set of five traps was deployed in each of the four replicates as follows: trap O was placed outside of the strawberry field 5 m from the north edge while traps A, B, C, and D were placed in the strawberry field 5 m (standard trap spacing), 10, 20, and 40 m from the north edge (Figure 1). It should be noted that the traps 40 m from the north end of the field were 5 m from the south end of the field. Traps were checked weekly until 28 March. During routine trap servicing, the drowning solution was drained into a sample container and replaced with fresh drowning solution. Samples were brought back to the University of Florida Small Fruit and Vegetable Integrated Pest Management (SFVIPM) laboratory in Gainesville Florida for processing. Numbers of D. suzukii males, which are distinguished from other drosophilids by the presence of a dark spot on each wing, and females, which are distinguished from other drosophilids by the presence of a heavily sclerotized and serrated ovipositor, were counted and recorded with the aid of a dissecting microscope at 10× magnification (Leica M80, Buffalo Grove, Illinois).

2.2 On-farm trials

In the 2017–2018 and 2018–2019 seasons, the study was conducted on an organic farm in Alachua county, Florida (29.62985 °N, 82.30416 °W; Figure 2). Strawberries were grown on the farm along with many other crops, mainly cruciferous vegetables. In both years, the strawberry plot was 30.5 m wide and 121.9 m long. As at the research station, strawberry plugs were planted in two rows on raised beds covered with black plastic mulch. ‘Sweet Sensation’ plugs were obtained from Production Lareault, Inc., Quebec, Canada. The grower applied a hydrogen peroxide solution (a proprietary blend) to manage diseases as needed. No insecticides were applied to the strawberry plot. The location of the strawberry plot was shifted ∼100 m to the east in 2018–2019.

Figure 2: Map of the organic on-farm site (Alachua county, Florida) in 2017–2018. The 2018–2019 site was ∼100 m to the east and setup in the same way. x indicate trap locations. See on farm trials methods for details.
Figure 2:

Map of the organic on-farm site (Alachua county, Florida) in 2017–2018. The 2018–2019 site was ∼100 m to the east and setup in the same way. x indicate trap locations. See on farm trials methods for details.

As on the research station, Scentry spotted wing drosophila traps baited with Scentry SWD lures were used to monitor adult D. suzukii populations. Eighteen traps were placed in the field on 6 December 2017 and 12 December 2018. As the field was only 30.5 m wide, the number of replicates was reduced to three so that each replicate was spaced 10 m apart. Traps were placed at the border of the woods (W) and, as at the research station, 5 m outside the plot (O), and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m from the north edge (Figure 2). In 2017–2018, the wood edge was ∼ 15 m from the edge of the strawberry plot. In 2018–2019, the wood edge was ∼20 m from the edge of the strawberry plot. Traps were checked weekly and maintained as in the research station trial.

2.3 Data analysis

Each season, total D. suzukii, D. suzukii females, and D. suzukii males per trap were log10(X + 1) transformed to normalize the data and equalize variances and then analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute 2012). If statistically significant, means were separated using least significant difference (LSD) tests. For the research station trial, the D. suzukii population was too low to analyze male and female data separately so only total D. suzukii per trap was analyzed. Untransformed means are presented in the results section and figures.

The distribution patterns of total, female, and male D. suzukii were analyzed using SADIE analysis in SADIEShell v. 2.0 (Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshore, UK). The red-blue plots were visualized using Surfer® v. 18.0.160 (Golden Software LLC, Golden, Colorado, USA). In red-blue plots, red areas indicate patches, which are clusters of high density, while blue areas indicate gaps, which are clusters of low density.

3 Results

3.1 Research station trial

Overall, fewer D. suzukii were collected from traps placed 10 m from the north end of the field (F = 4.73; df = 4.12; P = 0.02) compared to all the other trap locations. A mean of 2.0 ± 0.6 D. suzukii per trap per week were collected from the 10 m traps compared with 6.5 ± 2.0, 6.1 ± 2.0, 6.7 ± 2.1, and 5.3 ± 1.4 D. suzukii per trap per week collected from the traps outside the field and 5, 20, and 40 m into the field from the north end. However, there was an interaction between treatment and week (F = 1.6; df = 28.84; P = 0.05) (Figure 3). On 8 February, significantly fewer D. suzukii were caught in the 10 m and outside traps compared with the 5 m traps (F = 3.07; df = 4.19; P = 0.05). On 23 February, when D. suzukii populations peaked, significantly fewer D. suzukii were caught in the 10 m traps compared with all the other trap locations except those at 40 m (F = 5.29; df = 4.19; P = 0.007). On 28 February (F = 4.86; df = 4.19; P = 0.01) and 14 March (F = 7.76; df = 4.19; P = 0.001), significantly fewer D. suzukii were caught in the 10 m traps compared with all the other traps. No statistical differences between treatments occurred on any other date (all F ≤ 2.13; df = 4.19; P ≥ 0.13) though the numeric trend was toward lower trap catches in the 10 m traps except early in the season when trap catches were low at all trap locations.

Figure 3: Drosophila suzukii per trap each week from the Citra Plant Science Research and Education Unit (Citra, Marion county, Florida) research station site in 2016–2017. Traps were placed 5 m outside the strawberry field (out) and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. Means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. Error bars indicate SEMs.
Figure 3:

Drosophila suzukii per trap each week from the Citra Plant Science Research and Education Unit (Citra, Marion county, Florida) research station site in 2016–2017. Traps were placed 5 m outside the strawberry field (out) and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. Means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. Error bars indicate SEMs.

SADIE analysis showed a random distribution on all dates but 8 February (0.84 ≤ Iα ≤ 1.28; 0.8 ≥ P α  ≥ 0.09). On 8 February, the distribution was uniform (Iα = 0.72; P α  = 0.96).

3.2 On-farm Trials

In 2017–2018, overall, significantly higher numbers of total D. suzukii (F = 5.6; df = 5.10; P = 0.01) and D. suzukii males (F = 14.13; df = 5.10; P < 0.0001) were caught per trap per week in the woods border traps compared with all other trap locations. A mean of 177 ± 95 total D. suzukii per trap per week were collected from the woods border traps compared with 37 ± 17, 22 ± 6, 22 ± 8, 14 ± 4, and 28 ± 8 total D. suzukii per trap per week collected from the traps outside the field and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. A mean of 107 ± 59 D. suzukii males per trap per week were collected from the woods border traps compared with 17 ± 9, 6 ± 2, 6 ± 2, 4 ± 1, and 6 ± 2 D. suzukii males per trap per week collected from the traps outside the field and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. The same trend was seen with D. suzukii females, but it was not statistically significant (F = 2.65; df = 5.10; P = 0.08). A mean of 70 ± 38, 19 ± 9, 16 ± 4, 16 ± 5, 9 ± 3, and 22 ± 7 D. suzukii females per trap per week were collected from the woods border traps, traps outside the field and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. An interaction between treatment and week occurred for total D. suzukii (F = 3.62; df = 35.70; P < 0.0001), D. suzukii females (F = 2.76; df = 35.70; P = 0.0004), and D. suzukii males (F = 3.89; df = 35.70; P < 0.0001).

There were no statistical differences among trap locations for total D. suzukii (all F ≤ 2.34; df = 5,17; P ≥ 0.12) and D. suzukii females (all F ≤ 2.17; df = 5.17; P ≥ 0.14) until the last three sampling dates (Figure 4a and b). This trend was similar for D. suzukii males (all F ≤ 2.98; df = 5.17; P ≥ 0.07) except that statistically more males were caught in woods border traps compared to all other trap locations on 8 February (Figure 4c; F = 8.28; df = 5.17; P = 0.003). For total D. suzukii per trap on 7 March (F = 7.21; df = 5.17; P = 0.004), 14 March (F = 7.42; df = 5.17; P = 0.004), and 21 March (F = 11.19; df = 5.17; P = 0.0008), significantly more D. suzukii were caught in the woods border traps compared with all other locations (Figure 4a). On 21 March, outside traps collected more D. suzukii compared with traps at 10, 20, and 40 m. For D. suzukii females per trap on 7 March (F = 4.75; df = 5.17; P = 0.02), 14 March (F = 5.08; df = 5.17; P = 0.01), and 21 March (F = 6.69; df = 5.17; P = 0.006), significantly more D. suzukii were caught in the woods border traps compared with all other locations (Figure 4b). On 21 March, outside traps collected more D. suzukii females compared with traps at 20 m. For D. suzukii males per trap on 7 March (F = 9.65; df = 5.17; P = 0.001), 14 March (F = 12.1; df = 5.17; P = 0.0006), and 21 March (F = 22.73; df = 5.17; P < 0.0001), significantly higher numbers of D. suzukii were caught in the woods border traps compared with all other locations (Figure 4c). On 7 March, outside traps collected more D. suzukii males compared with traps at 10 m. On 21 March, outside traps collected more D. suzukii males compared with all locations in the strawberry field and traps at 5 m collected more D. suzukii males compared with traps at 40 m.

Figure 4: Total Drosophila suzukii (a), D. suzukii females (b), and D. suzukii males (c) per trap each week from the 2017–2018 season on the organic on-farm site. Traps were placed at the woods border (wood), 5 m outside the strawberry field (out) and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. Means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. Error bars indicate SEMs.
Figure 4:

Total Drosophila suzukii (a), D. suzukii females (b), and D. suzukii males (c) per trap each week from the 2017–2018 season on the organic on-farm site. Traps were placed at the woods border (wood), 5 m outside the strawberry field (out) and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. Means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. Error bars indicate SEMs.

SADIE analysis for total D. suzukii indicated clustering on 24 January (Iα = 1.41; P α  = 0.04), 7 March (Iα = 1.45; P α  = 0.03), 14 March (Iα = 1.51; P α  = 0.01), and 21 March (Iα = 1.69; P α  = 0.002). The distribution was uniform on 21 February. (Iα = 0.73; P α  = 0.97) and random on all other sampling dates (0.88 ≤ Iα ≤ 1.23; 0.71 ≥ P α  ≥ 0.1). On 24 January, a small patch of total D. suzukii was located in the northeast corner of the field and woods border and a large gap encompassed most of the rest of the strawberry field (Figure 5a). Trends for the March sampling dates (Figure 5b–d) were similar, with patches of total D. suzukii located in the woods and stretching into the northeast corner of the field on 21 March. Large gaps were seen in the strawberry field throughout the March sampling dates.

Figure 5: Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of total Drosophila suzukii on a) 24 January, b) 7 March, c) 14 March, and d) 21 March 2018 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii.
Figure 5:

Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of total Drosophila suzukii on a) 24 January, b) 7 March, c) 14 March, and d) 21 March 2018 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii.

For D. suzukii females, SADIE analysis only indicated clustering on 7 March (Iα = 1.40; P α  = 0.04), 14 March (Iα = 1.51; P α  = 0.02), and 21 March (Iα = 1.62; P α  = 0.007). The distribution was uniform on 28 February. (Iα = 0.69; P α  = 0.98) and random on all other sampling dates (0.90 ≤ Iα ≤ 1.32; 0.70 ≥ P α  ≥ 0.07). Trends on the significant dates (Figure 6a–c) were similar to total D. suzukii, with patches of D. suzukii females located in the woods and northeast corner of the field and gaps in most of the rest of the strawberry field.

Figure 6: Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of Drosophila suzukii females on a) 7 March, b) 14 March, and c) 21 March 2018 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii females.
Figure 6:

Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of Drosophila suzukii females on a) 7 March, b) 14 March, and c) 21 March 2018 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii females.

SADIE analysis for D. suzukii males indicated clustering on 17 January (Iα = 1.40; P α  = 0.03) and 24 January (Iα = 1.71; P α  = 0.0002) and 7 March (Iα = 1.49; P α  = 0.02), 14 March (Iα = 1.48; P α  = 0.02), and 21 March (Iα = 1.69; P α  = 0.002). The distribution was random on all other sampling dates (0.92 ≤ Iα ≤ 1.31; 0.61 ≥ P α  ≥ 0.09). On all sample dates where clustering was significant (Figure 7a–e), patches of D. suzukii males occurred in the woods and outside traps with the patch extending into the northeast corner of the field on 21 March. Large gaps occurred in the strawberry field on all sample dates.

Figure 7: Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of Drosophila suzukii males on a) 17 January, b) 24 January, c) 7 March, d) 14 March, and e) 21 March 2018 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii males.
Figure 7:

Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of Drosophila suzukii males on a) 17 January, b) 24 January, c) 7 March, d) 14 March, and e) 21 March 2018 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii males.

In 2018–2019, the overall trend was similar to that in 2017–2018 with higher numbers of D. suzukii caught in the woods traps. For total D. suzukii (F = 4.4; df = 5,10; P = 0.02), significantly more D. suzukii were caught in the woods traps (79 ± 12) compared with the outside traps (29 ± 4) and traps at 5 m (37 ± 8) and 20 m (24 ± 2). Mean numbers of D. suzukii in the traps were 39 ± 7 and 33 ± 13 at 10 and 40 m, respectively. Significantly more D. suzukii males were caught in the woods traps compared with all other treatments (F = 5.6; df = 5,10; P = 0.01) but the trend was not statistically significant for females (F = 2.8; df = 5,10; P = 0.08). A mean of 38 ± 8 D. suzukii males per trap per week was collected from the woods border traps compared with 8 ± 1, 12 ± 3, 10 ± 2, 4 ± 0.3, and 8 ± 5 D. suzukii males per trap per week collected from the traps outside the field and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. A mean of 42 ± 4, 21 ± 3, 25 ± 5, 28 ± 5, 20 ± 2, and 25 ± 8 D. suzukii females per trap per week was collected from the woods border traps, traps outside the field and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. As in the previous season, there was an interaction between treatment and week for total D. suzukii (F = 1.94; df = 40.80; P < 0.008), D. suzukii females (F = 1.94; df = 40.80; P = 0.008), and D. suzukii males (F = 2.0; df = 40.80; P < 0.005).

On 27 February (F = 4.01; df = 5.17; P = 0.03), higher numbers of total D. suzukii (Figure 8a) were caught in woods border traps compared with outside traps and traps at 5 and 20 m. Higher numbers of D. suzukii also were collected in 40 m traps compared with outside traps (Figure 8a). On 6 March (F = 7.59; df = 5.17; P = 0.004), higher numbers of D. suzukii were collected in woods border traps compared with outside, 5 m, and 20 m traps. Higher numbers of D. suzukii also were collected in traps at 40 m compared with all other trap locations except woods border traps. On 27 March (F = 4.64; df = 5.17; P = 0.02), significantly more D. suzukii were collected from woods border traps compared with traps at 20 and 40 m. Higher numbers of D. suzukii also were caught at 5 m compared with 40 m. There were no differences among trap locations on any other sampling date (all F ≤ 3.05; df = 5.17; P ≥ 0.06).

Figure 8: Total Drosophila suzukii (a), D. suzukii females (c), and D. suzukii males (e) per trap each week from the 2018–2019 season at the organic on-farm site. Traps were placed at the woods border (wood), 5 m outside the strawberry field (out) and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. For total D. suzukii and D. suzukii females, * indicates date with treatment differences at P < 0.05 and b) and d) show details for those dates where means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. For D. suzukii males, means with the same letter were not different at P < 0.05. Error bars indicate SEMs.
Figure 8:

Total Drosophila suzukii (a), D. suzukii females (c), and D. suzukii males (e) per trap each week from the 2018–2019 season at the organic on-farm site. Traps were placed at the woods border (wood), 5 m outside the strawberry field (out) and 5, 10, 20, and 40 m into the field. For total D. suzukii and D. suzukii females, * indicates date with treatment differences at P < 0.05 and b) and d) show details for those dates where means with the same letter are not different at P < 0.05. For D. suzukii males, means with the same letter were not different at P < 0.05. Error bars indicate SEMs.

SADIE analysis for total D. suzukii indicated clustering on 9 January (Iα = 1.55; P α  = 0.02), 23 January (Iα = 1.51; P α  = 0.04), and 29 January (Iα = 1.73; P α  = 0.008), 4 February (Iα = 1.44; P α  = 0.04) and 26 February (Iα = 1.44; P α  = 0.04), and 13 March (Iα = 1.51; P α  = 0.03), 20 March (Iα = 1.42; P α  = 0.05) and 27 March (Iα = 2.06; P α  = 0.0002). The distribution was random on all other sampling dates (1.18 ≤ Iα ≤ 1.39; 0.18 ≥ P α  ≥ 0.06). In general, patches of total D. suzukii were located in the woods border traps and the northeast part of the strawberry field (Figure 9a–g). On 23 January, a patch was located around the middle 40 m trap. Gaps were located within the strawberry field and the area that encompassed the outside traps.

Figure 9: Red-blue plots showing clustering of patches (red) and gaps (blue) of total Drosophila suzukii on a) 9 January, b) 23 January, c) 29 January, d) 4 February, e) 26 February, f) 13 March, g) 20 March, and h) 27 March 2019 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii.
Figure 9:

Red-blue plots showing clustering of patches (red) and gaps (blue) of total Drosophila suzukii on a) 9 January, b) 23 January, c) 29 January, d) 4 February, e) 26 February, f) 13 March, g) 20 March, and h) 27 March 2019 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii.

No statistical differences in D. suzukii females per trap (Figure 8b) occurred on any sampling date (all F ≤ 3.23; df = 5.17, P ≥ 0.054) except 6 March (F = 17.56; df = 5.17; P = 0.0001). On 6 March, there were significantly more D. suzukii females caught in traps at 40 m compared with all other trap locations. There were also higher numbers of D. suzukii females caught in woods border, outside, and 10 m traps compared with traps at 5 and 20 m.

SADIE analysis indicated clustering on only 9 January (Iα = 1.47; P α  = 0.05) and 27 March (Iα = 1.86; P α  = 0.001). The distribution was uniform on 20 March (Iα = 0.47; P α  = 0.99) and random on all other sampling dates (0.91 ≤ Iα ≤ 1.34; 0.63 ≥ P α  ≥ 0.06). On 9 January (Figure 10a), patches of D. suzukii females occurred in the woods on the northeast corner of the study area and the area that encompassed the 40 m trap in the southeast corner of the study area. A gap of D. suzukii females included the outside traps, all traps at 5 and 10 m, and the middle 20 m trap. On 27 March (Figure 10b), there was a patch of D. suzukii females in the woods and northeast corner of the strawberry field. There was a large gap that included the rest of the field and the outside traps.

Figure 10: Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of Drosophila suzukii females on a) 9 January and b) 27 March 2019 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii females.
Figure 10:

Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) of Drosophila suzukii females on a) 9 January and b) 27 March 2019 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii females.

On 29 January (F = 11.39; df = 5.17; P = 0.0007), 27 February (F = 5.09; df = 5.17; P = 0.01), and 13 March (F = 7.12; df = 5.17; P = 0.004), significantly higher numbers of male D. suzukii (Figure 8c) were caught in woods border traps compared with all other trap locations. On 20 March (F = 3.26; df = 5.17; P = 0.05), significantly higher numbers of D. suzukii males were collected from woods border traps compared with outside, 20, and 40 m traps. On 27 March (F = 9.94; df = 5.17; P = 0.01), significantly higher numbers of males were collected from woods border traps compared with outside, 10, 20, and 40 m traps. Higher numbers of males also were collected from 5 m traps compared with 20 and 40 m traps. There were no differences among trap locations on any other sampling date (all F ≤ 2.11; df = 5.17; P ≥ 0.15).

SADIE analysis for D. suzukii males indicated clustering on 3 January (Iα = 1.56; P α  = 0.01), 9 January (Iα = 1.66; P α  = 0.000), 23 January (Iα = 1.62; P α  = 0.01), and 29 January (Iα = 1.88; P α  = 0.0003), 4 February (Iα = 1.59; P α  = 0.02) and 26 February (Iα = 1.72; P α  = 0.003), and 13 March (Iα = 171; P α  = 0.006), 20 March (Iα = 1.88; P α  = 0.001), and 27 March (Iα = 2.25; P α  = 0.0002). The distribution was random on all other sampling dates (1.10 ≤ Iα ≤ 1.46; 0.24 ≥ P α  ≥ 0.053). Patches of males were generally found in the woods and had spread into the outside and 5 m traps at the end of the season (Figure 11a–i). Gaps were generally found in the strawberry field itself.

Figure 11: Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) Drosophila suzukii males on a) 3 January, b) 9 January, c) 23 January, d) 29 January, e) 4 February, f) 26 February, g) 13 March, h) 20 March, and i) 27 March 2019 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii males.
Figure 11:

Red-blue plots showing patches (red) and gaps (blue) Drosophila suzukii males on a) 3 January, b) 9 January, c) 23 January, d) 29 January, e) 4 February, f) 26 February, g) 13 March, h) 20 March, and i) 27 March 2019 from the organic on-farm site in Gainesville, Alachua county, Florida (Figure 2). Values > 1 indicate patches and values < −1 indicate gaps of D. suzukii males.

4 Discussion

The level of D. suzukii infestation on the research station strawberry field site was low and SADIE analysis indicated a random distribution throughout the season. This field was in the middle of the organic certified area of the research station far from any surrounding vegetation or wild borders. Many studies have noted higher D. suzukii populations on the border in cultivated crops adjacent to wild hosts or wooded areas, including wild fruit adjacent to Maine blueberry fields (Ballman and Drummond 2017), forests with wild Vaccinium spp. or other host plants adjacent to sweet cherry (Santoiemma et al. 2018), wild blackberries adjacent to raspberries in Oregon (Klick et al. 2016) and adjacent to vineyards in the Upper Rhine Valley (WeiBinger et al. 2019), and wild honeysuckle adjacent to blueberries in Michigan (Leach et al. 2019). As the strawberry field on the research farm had no woody borders, the random distribution is not surprising.

The D. suzukii population on the research station peaked on 23 February 2017. Peak crop yield (data not shown) occurred in February, and the D. suzukii females were likely responding to this increase in food availability. In other words, the higher fruit density may have attracted more D. suzukii females into the field. Yield quality and quantity declined after 28 February due to strawberry seed bug, Neopamera bilobata (Say) (Hemiptera: Rhyparochromidae), injury. An application of Azera® (azadirachtin + pyrethrins, MGK® Brooklyn Park, Minnesota) was made on 28 February to reduce N. bilobata numbers. This may also have reduced D. suzukii numbers (Fanning et al. 2018; Iglesias and Liburd 2017a).

The small size of the field may also have been a factor contributing to the low numbers of D. suzukii and the random distribution. The traps 40 m from the north end of the field were only 5 m from the south end of the field. Adult D. suzukii are highly mobile and could quickly spread throughout a small research field like the one at the Citra PSREU.

The traps placed 10 m from the north end of the field caught less D. suzukii. These were the only traps in the field that were placed at the border of the experimental plots. The traps at 5, 20, and 40 m from the north end of the field were all close to the middle of experimental plots. Being located on the border of the experimental plots and the untreated buffer zone may have led to the capture of less D. suzukii in the 10 m traps.

In spite of the lack of border vegetation, the traps 5 m outside the north end of the field caught similar numbers of D. suzukii to the traps at 5, 20, and 40 m. These flies were either being drawn out of the strawberry field, coming from elsewhere on the farm, or from a combination of these two locations. Further research is needed to determine from where the flies caught in outside traps are travelling.

At the on-farm site, populations of D. suzukii remained low in both the strawberry field and the woods border until March in both seasons. Joshi et al. (2017) found that populations of D. suzukii did not start to build up in Maryland and Pennsylvania until July. This meant that earlier fruiting crops (blueberries, cherries, and summer raspberries) had much lower D. suzukii pressure than crops that fruited later in the summer, which included blackberries, primocane raspberries, and grapes. The data from our study indicated that a similar phenomenon may be happening in Florida, with D. suzukii populations beginning to build up in March in north-central Florida while strawberries begin fruiting in December.

In both seasons, SADIE analysis indicated that D. suzukii males were clustered in the woods and, later in the season, in the outside traps, and traps 5 m into the strawberry field. The trend was not as pronounced for females, especially in the second year. Santoiemma et al. (2019) found that in Italian vineyards bordered by forest, D. suzukii populations were high in the forest during the cold season, spread evenly across the forest and vineyard during favorable temperature conditions, and then retreated to the woods when temperatures increased to limiting levels. In this study, D. suzukii females appeared to follow a similar pattern; the temperature was favorable, so they were more randomly distributed throughout the field. Males may have been more clustered in the woods and on the strawberry field border because mates were more readily available than deeper into the strawberry field.

In the second trial of the on-farm site, the D. suzukii population, especially the female D. suzukii population, was higher in the strawberry field than in the previous year. This was likely because the grower could not get enough harvest help in the second year and so went to U-pick in late February as opposed to doing so in late March as in the previous season. As a result of this, a great deal of overripe and rotting fruit was left in the field, which may have attracted D. suzukii females as a food source and alternative oviposition site. Dropped apples, grapes, pears, and raspberries as well as fruit waste are utilized by female D. suzukii as oviposition sites (Bal et al. 2017). Cai et al. (2019) experimented with several fruits, including strawberries, and found that D. suzukii females mainly use rotten fruit for food and oviposit mainly in ripe fruit.

The other difference between the two seasons was that the D. suzukii population in the woods border traps was much lower in the 2017–2018 season compared with the 2018–2019 season. The strawberry plot was not located in the same place on the farm in both years. In the 2018–2019 season, the plot was located ∼100 m to the west of where it had been in 2017–2018. It is possible that there were not as many wild host plants in the patch of woods adjacent to the plot in 2018–2019 compared with 2017–2018. Klick et al. (2016) captured D. suzukii in much higher numbers from field margins containing wild blackberries compared to field margins with no alternative hosts. Unfortunately, the woods bordering the organic farm where data for this study was collected did not belong to the grower so no exploration for potential alternative hosts could occur.

This study is limited by being conducted on only one organic farm in Florida. Further research on multiple farms is needed to confirm and expand on the results from this study. Looking at movement and distribution on large conventional farms would also provide additional information. In general, organic farms are broken up into small areas planted with different crops. In contrast, large conventional commercial farms have many acres planted with the same crop. The larger crop area would allow the placement of larger numbers of traps, which would enable the use of other spatial statistics like kriging.

In this study, D. suzukii were much more numerous in the on-farm strawberry field site with a woods border compared with the strawberry field in the middle of the research station site far from the bordering woods. Also, populations of D. suzukii were much higher in the woods border traps in both years, though the trend was not significant for females in the second year. For organic growers that grow a diversity of crops, planting strawberries as far from woody borders as possible might be a useful tactic to manage D. suzukii. Females appeared to move easily up to 40 m into the strawberry field and were found in higher numbers the second year likely due to increased amounts of overripe and rotting fruit. Therefore, frequent harvests and proper field sanitation are likely important tools for managing D. suzukii in strawberry as in other fruit crops. Populations in the field remained low until the beginning of March. This indicates that insecticide applications may not be necessary until late February or early March. Future research can focus on determining the efficacy of these suggested tactics.

Corresponding author: Elena M. Rhodes, Entomology and Nematology Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611, Florida, USA, E-mail:

Funding source: National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2015-51300-24134

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all the staff and students of the Small Fruit and Vegetable IPM Laboratory for help with sample collection and processing. Thanks to the staff of the Plant Science Research and Education Unit for plot preparation and maintenance.

  1. Research ethics: Not applicable.

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  3. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission. Elena Rhodes was involved in the research design, in collecting, processing and analysis of data, and in writing and revising this manuscript. Oscar Liburd and Carlene Chase were involved in the project design and reviewed the manuscript.

  4. Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: None declared.

  5. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

  6. Research funding: Funding for this project was provided by Organic Agricultural Research and Extension grant no. 2015-51300-24134/project accession no. 1007441 from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

  7. Data availability: The raw data can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Babu, A., Dilorenzo, C.L., and Sial, A.A. (2021). Efficacy of attract-and-kill formulations using the adjuvant ACTTRA SWD OR1 for the management of spotted-wing drosophila in blueberries. 2020. Arthrop. Manag. Tests 46: tsab074, https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsab074.Search in Google Scholar

Babu, A., Rodriguez-Saona, C., and Sial, A.A. (2022a). Comparative adult mortality and relative attractiveness of spotted-wing drosophila (Diptera: Drosophilidae) to novel attract-and-kill (ACTTRA SWD) formulations mixed with different insecticides. Front. Ecol. Evolut. 10: 846169, https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2022.846169.Search in Google Scholar

Babu, A., Rodriguez-Saona, C., and Sial, A.A. (2022b). Factors influencing the efficacy of novel attract-and-kill (ACTTRA SWD) formulations against Drosophila suzukii. J. Econ. Entomol. 115: 981–989, https://doi.org/10/1093/jee/toab273.10.1093/jee/toab273Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Bal, H.K., Adams, C., and Grieshop, M. (2017). Evaluation of off-season potential breeding sources for spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii Matsumura) in Michigan. J. Econ. Entomol. 110: 2466–2470, https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tox252.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Ballman, E.S. and Drummond, F.A. (2017). Infestation of wild fruit by Drosophila suzukii surrounding Maine wild blueberry fields. J. Agricul. Urban Entomol. 33: 61–70, https://doi.org/10.3954/1523-5475-33.1.61.Search in Google Scholar

Bellamy, D.E., Sisterson, M.S., and Walse, S.S. (2013). Quantifying host potentials: indexing postharvest fresh fruits for spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. PLoS ONE 8: e61227, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061227.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Bruck, D.J., Bolda, M., Tanigoshi, L., Klick, J., Kleiber, J., DeFrancesco, J., Gerdeman, B., and Spitler, H. (2011). Laboratory and field comparisons of insecticides to reduce infestation of Drosophila suzukii in berry crops. Pest Manage. Sci. 67: 1375–1385, https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2242.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Cai, P., Song, Y., Yi, C., Zhang, Q., Xa, H., Lin, J., Zhang, H., Yang, J., Ji, Q., and Chen, J. (2019). Potential host fruits for Drosophila suzukii: olfactory and oviposition preferences and suitability for development. Entomol. Exper. Appl. 167: 880–890, https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12840.Search in Google Scholar

Calabria, G., Máca, J., Bächli, G., Serra, L., and Pascual, M. (2012). First records of the potential pest species Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Europe. J. Appl. Entomol. 136: 139–147, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01583.Search in Google Scholar

Cini, A., Ioriatti, C., and Anfora, G. (2012). A review of invasion of Drosophila suzukii in Europe and a draft research agenda for integrated pest management. Bull. Insectol. 65: 149–160.Search in Google Scholar

Deprá, M., Poppe, J.L., Schmitz, H.J., De Toni, D.C., and Valente, V.L.S. (2014). The first records of the invasive pest Drosophila suzukii in the South American continent. J. Pest Sci. 87: 379–383, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-014-0591-5.Search in Google Scholar

Diepenbrock, L.M., Rosensteel, D.O., Hardin, J.A., Sial, A.A., and Burrack, H.J. (2016). Season-long programs for control of Drosophila suzukii in southeastern U.S. blueberries. Crop Prot. 81: 76–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.12.012.Search in Google Scholar

Disi, J.O. and Sial, A.A. (2019). Efficacy of HOOK SWD attract-and-kill SPLAT for management of spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) in Georgia rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Alton). Arthrop. Manag. Tests 44: tsy112, https://doi.org/10.1093/amt/tsy112.Search in Google Scholar

Englert, C. and Herz, A. (2019). Acceptability of Drosophila suzukii as prey for common predators occurring in cherries and berries. J. Appl. Entomol. 143: 387–396, https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12613.Search in Google Scholar

Fanning, P.D., Grieshop, M.J., and Isaacs, R. (2018). Efficacy of biopesticides on spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii Matsumura in fall red raspberries. J. Appl. Entomol. 142: 26–32, https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12462.Search in Google Scholar

Hauser, M. 2011. A historic account of the invasion of Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in the continental United States, with remarks on their identification. Pest Manage. Sci. 67: 1352–1357. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2265.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Haviland, D.R. and Beers, E.H. (2012). Chemical control programs for Drosophila suzukii that comply with international limitations on pesticide residues for exported sweet cherries. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 3: F1–F6, https://doi.org/10.1603/ipm11034.Search in Google Scholar

Ibouh, K., Oreste, M., Bubici, G., Tarasco, E., Stacconi, M.V.R., Ioriatti, C., Verrastro, V., Anfora, G., and Baser, N. (2019). Biological control of Drosophila suzukii: efficacy of parasitoids, entomopathogenic fungi, nematodes and deterrents of oviposition in laboratory assays. Crop Prot. 125: 104897, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.croppro.2019.104897.Search in Google Scholar

Iglesias, L.E. and Liburd, O.E. (2017a). Identification of biorational insecticides for managing spotted wing drosophila in organic blueberry production. Acta Horticul. 1180: 282–292, https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1180.38.Search in Google Scholar

Iglesias, L.E. and Liburd, O.E. (2017b). The effect of border sprays and between-row soil tillage on Drosophila suzukii in organic black berry production. J. Appl. Entomol. 141: 19–27, https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12352.Search in Google Scholar

Joshi, N.K., Butler, B., Demchak, K., and Biddinger, D. (2017). Seasonal occurrence of spotted wing drosophila in various small fruit and berries in Pennsylvania and Maryland. J. Appl. Entomol. 141: 156–160, https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12325.Search in Google Scholar

Klick, J., Lang, W.Q., Walton, V.M., Dalton, D.T., Hagler, J.R., Dreves, A.J., Lee, J.C., and Bruck, D.J. (2016). Distribution and activity of Drosophila suzukii in cultivated raspberry and surrounding vegetation. J. Appl. Entomol. 140: 37–46, https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12234.Search in Google Scholar

Klick, J., Rodriguez-Saona, C.R., Cumplido, J.H., Holdcraft, R.J., Urrutia, W.H., Salva, R.O., Borges, A., Mafra-Neto, A., and Seagraves, M.P. (2019). Testing a novel attract-and-kill strategy for Drosopila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) management. J. Ins. Sci. 19: 3, https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/iey132.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Leach, H., Hagler, J.R., Machtley, S.A., and Isaacs, R. (2019). Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) utilization and dispersal from the wild host Asian bush honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.). Agricul. For. Entomol. 21: 149–158, https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12315.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, J.C., Bruck, D.J., Curry, H., Edwards, D., Haviland, D.R., Van Steenwyk, R.A., and Yorgey, B.M. (2011a). The susceptibility of small fruits and cherries to the spotted-wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. Pest Manage. Sci. 67: 1358–1367, https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2225.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Lee, J.C., Bruck, D.J., Dreves, A.J., Ioriatti, C., Vogt, H., and Baufeld, P. (2011b). In focus: spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii, across perspectives. Pest Manage. Sci. 67: 1349–1351, https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.2271.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Lee, J.C., Dreves, A.J., Cave, A.M., Kawai, S., Isaacs, R., Miller, J.C., Timmerman, S.V., and Bruck, D.J. (2015). Infestation of wild and ornamental noncrop fruits by Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Ann. Entomol. Soci. Am. 108: 117–129, https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/sau014.Search in Google Scholar

Little, C.M., Chapman, T.W., Moreau, D.L., and Hillier, N.K. (2017). Susceptibility of selected boreal fruits and berries to the invasive pest Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Pest Manage. Sci. 73: 160–166, https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4366.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Rendon, D. and Walton, V.M. (2019). Drip and overhead sprinkler irrigation in blueberry as cultural control for Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in northwestern United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 112: 745–752, https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toy359.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Santoiemma, G., Mori, N., Tonina, L., and Marini, L. (2018). Semi-natural habitats boost Drosophila suzukii populations and crop damage in sweet cherry. Agricul. Ecosyst. Environ. 257: 152–158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.02.013.Search in Google Scholar

Santoiemma, G., Trivellato, F., Caloi, V., Mori, N., and Marini, L. (2019). Habitat preference of Drosophila suzukii across heterogeneous landscapes. J. Pest Sci. 92: 485–494, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-018-1052-3.Search in Google Scholar

SAS Institute (2012). SAS/STAT user’s guide. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina.Search in Google Scholar

Thistlewood, H.M.A., Rozema, B., and Acheampong, S. (2019). Infestation and timing of use of non-crop plants by Drosophila suzukii (Matsumura) (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in the okanagan basin, Canada. Canad. Entomol. 151: 34–48, https://doi.org/10.4039/tce.2018.47.Search in Google Scholar

Urbaneja-Bernat, P., Holdcraft, R., Hernández-Cumplido, J., Rhodes, E.M., Liburd, O.E., Sial, A.A., Mafra-Neto, A., and Rodriguez-Saona, C. (2022). Field, semi-field, and greenhouse testing of HOOK SWD, a SPLAT-based attract-and-kill formulation to manage spotted-wing drosophila in blueberries. J. Appl. Entomol. 146: 1230–1242, https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.13073.Search in Google Scholar

Van Timmeren, S. and Isaacs, R. (2013). Control of spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii, by specific insecticides and by conventional and organic crop protection programs. Crop Prot. 54: 126–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2013.08.003.Search in Google Scholar

Walsh, D.B., Bolda, M.P., Goodhue, R.E., Dreves, A.J., Lee, J., Bruck, D.J., Walton, V.M., O’Neal, S.D., and Zalom, F.G. (2011). Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae): invasive pest of ripening soft fruit expanding its geographic range and damage potential. J. Integ. Pest Manag. 2: G1–G7, https://doi.org/10.1603/IPM10010.Search in Google Scholar

WeiBinger, L., Schrieber, K., Breuer, M., and Müller, C. (2019). Influences of blackberry margins on population dynamics of Drosophila suzukii and grape infestation in adjacent vineyards. J. Appl. Entomol. 143: 802–812, https://doi.org/10.1111/jen.12669.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-09-30
Accepted: 2024-10-04
Published Online: 2024-12-19

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter on behalf of the Florida Entomological Society

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Distribution and dispersal of adult spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), in organically grown strawberries in Florida
  4. A comparison of the capture of non-target arthropods between control methods and monitoring traps of Anastrepha ludens in citrus agroecosystems
  5. Development of microsatellite markers for colony delineation of the invasive Asian subterranean termite (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) in South Florida and Taiwan
  6. Biology and life table of Oligonychus punicae Hirst (Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae) on three host plants
  7. Relative captures and detection of male Ceratitis capitata using a natural oil lure or trimedlure plugs
  8. Evaluation of HOOK SWD attract-and-kill on captures, emergence, and survival of Drosophila suzukii in Florida
  9. Rearing Neoseiulus cucumeris and Amblyseius swirskii (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) on non-target species reduces their predation efficacy on target species
  10. Response of male Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) to methyl eugenol: can they be desensitized?
  11. Monitoring of coccinellid (Coleoptera) presence and syrphid (Diptera) species diversity and abundance in southern California citrus orchards: implications for conservation biological control of Asian citrus psyllid and other citrus pests
  12. Topical treatment of adult house flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), with Beauveria bassiana in combination with three entomopathogenic bacteria
  13. Laboratory evaluation of 15 entomopathogenic fungal spore formulations on the mortality of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), related drosophilids, and honeybees
  14. Effect of diatomaceous earth on diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), larval feeding and survival on cabbage
  15. Bioactivity of seed extracts from different genotypes of Jatropha curcas (Euphorbiaceae) against Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
  16. Assessment of sugarberry as a host tree of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in southeastern USA agroecosystems
  17. The importance of multigeneration host specificity testing: rejection of a potential biocontrol agent of Nymphaea mexicana (Nymphaeaceae) in South Africa
  18. Endophytic potential of entomopathogenic fungi associated with Urochloa ruziziensis (Poaceae) for spittlebug (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) control
  19. The first complete mitogenome sequence of a biological control agent, Pseudophilothrips ichini (Hood) (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae)
  20. Exploring the potential of Delphastus davidsoni (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the biological control of Bemisia tabaci MEAM 1 (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)
  21. Behavioral responses of Ixodiphagus hookeri (Hymenoptera; Encyrtidae) to Rhipicephalus sanguineus nymphs (Ixodida: Ixodidae) and dog hair volatiles
  22. Illustrating the current geographic distribution of Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) in Campeche, Mexico: a maximum entropy modeling approach
  23. New records of Clusiidae (Diptera: Schizophora), including three species new to North America
  24. Photuris mcavoyi (Coleoptera: Lampyridae): a new firefly from Delaware interdunal wetlands
  25. Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) diversity and synanthropy in a protected natural area and its influence zone in western Mexico
  26. Temperature-dependent development and life tables of Palpita unionalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
  27. Orchid bee collects herbicide that mimics the fragrance of its orchid mutualists
  28. Importance of wildflowers in Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) diet
  29. Bee diversity and abundance in perennial irrigated crops and adjacent habitats in central Washington state
  30. Comparison of home-made and commercial baits for trapping Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in blueberry crops
  31. Miscellaneous
  32. Dr. Charles W. O’Brien: True Pioneer in Weevil Taxonomy and Publisher
  33. Scientific Notes
  34. Nests and resin sources (including propolis) of the naturalized orchid bee Euglossa dilemma (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Florida
  35. Impact of laurel wilt on the avocado germplasm collection at the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Subtropical Horticulture Research Station
  36. Monitoring adult Delia platura (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in New York State corn fields using blue and yellow sticky cards
  37. New distribution records and host plants of two species of Hypothenemus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in mangrove ecosystems of Tamaulipas, Mexico
  38. First record of Trichogramma pretiosum parasitizing Iridopsis panopla eggs in eucalyptus in Brazil
  39. Spodoptera cosmioides (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) as an alternative host for mass rearing the parasitoid Palmistichus elaeisis (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)
  40. Effects of biochar on ambrosia beetle attacks on redbud and pecan container trees
  41. First report of Diatraea impersonatella (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in Honduras
  42. Book Reviews
  43. Kratzer, C. A.: The Cicadas of North America
https://doi.org/10.1515/flaent-2024-0077
Keywords for this article
vinegar fruit fly; strawberry; SADIE
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Distribution and dispersal of adult spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), in organically grown strawberries in Florida
  4. A comparison of the capture of non-target arthropods between control methods and monitoring traps of Anastrepha ludens in citrus agroecosystems
  5. Development of microsatellite markers for colony delineation of the invasive Asian subterranean termite (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) in South Florida and Taiwan
  6. Biology and life table of Oligonychus punicae Hirst (Trombidiformes: Tetranychidae) on three host plants
  7. Relative captures and detection of male Ceratitis capitata using a natural oil lure or trimedlure plugs
  8. Evaluation of HOOK SWD attract-and-kill on captures, emergence, and survival of Drosophila suzukii in Florida
  9. Rearing Neoseiulus cucumeris and Amblyseius swirskii (Mesostigmata: Phytoseiidae) on non-target species reduces their predation efficacy on target species
  10. Response of male Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) to methyl eugenol: can they be desensitized?
  11. Monitoring of coccinellid (Coleoptera) presence and syrphid (Diptera) species diversity and abundance in southern California citrus orchards: implications for conservation biological control of Asian citrus psyllid and other citrus pests
  12. Topical treatment of adult house flies, Musca domestica L. (Diptera: Muscidae), with Beauveria bassiana in combination with three entomopathogenic bacteria
  13. Laboratory evaluation of 15 entomopathogenic fungal spore formulations on the mortality of Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), related drosophilids, and honeybees
  14. Effect of diatomaceous earth on diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), larval feeding and survival on cabbage
  15. Bioactivity of seed extracts from different genotypes of Jatropha curcas (Euphorbiaceae) against Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)
  16. Assessment of sugarberry as a host tree of Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) in southeastern USA agroecosystems
  17. The importance of multigeneration host specificity testing: rejection of a potential biocontrol agent of Nymphaea mexicana (Nymphaeaceae) in South Africa
  18. Endophytic potential of entomopathogenic fungi associated with Urochloa ruziziensis (Poaceae) for spittlebug (Hemiptera: Cercopidae) control
  19. The first complete mitogenome sequence of a biological control agent, Pseudophilothrips ichini (Hood) (Thysanoptera: Phlaeothripidae)
  20. Exploring the potential of Delphastus davidsoni (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in the biological control of Bemisia tabaci MEAM 1 (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae)
  21. Behavioral responses of Ixodiphagus hookeri (Hymenoptera; Encyrtidae) to Rhipicephalus sanguineus nymphs (Ixodida: Ixodidae) and dog hair volatiles
  22. Illustrating the current geographic distribution of Diaphorina citri (Hemiptera: Psyllidae) in Campeche, Mexico: a maximum entropy modeling approach
  23. New records of Clusiidae (Diptera: Schizophora), including three species new to North America
  24. Photuris mcavoyi (Coleoptera: Lampyridae): a new firefly from Delaware interdunal wetlands
  25. Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) diversity and synanthropy in a protected natural area and its influence zone in western Mexico
  26. Temperature-dependent development and life tables of Palpita unionalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
  27. Orchid bee collects herbicide that mimics the fragrance of its orchid mutualists
  28. Importance of wildflowers in Orius insidiosus (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) diet
  29. Bee diversity and abundance in perennial irrigated crops and adjacent habitats in central Washington state
  30. Comparison of home-made and commercial baits for trapping Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in blueberry crops
  31. Miscellaneous
  32. Dr. Charles W. O’Brien: True Pioneer in Weevil Taxonomy and Publisher
  33. Scientific Notes
  34. Nests and resin sources (including propolis) of the naturalized orchid bee Euglossa dilemma (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Florida
  35. Impact of laurel wilt on the avocado germplasm collection at the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Subtropical Horticulture Research Station
  36. Monitoring adult Delia platura (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in New York State corn fields using blue and yellow sticky cards
  37. New distribution records and host plants of two species of Hypothenemus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) in mangrove ecosystems of Tamaulipas, Mexico
  38. First record of Trichogramma pretiosum parasitizing Iridopsis panopla eggs in eucalyptus in Brazil
  39. Spodoptera cosmioides (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) as an alternative host for mass rearing the parasitoid Palmistichus elaeisis (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae)
  40. Effects of biochar on ambrosia beetle attacks on redbud and pecan container trees
  41. First report of Diatraea impersonatella (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) on sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) in Honduras
  42. Book Reviews
  43. Kratzer, C. A.: The Cicadas of North America
Downloaded on 2.5.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/flaent-2024-0077/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button