Home Control of Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae) by trapping with banana vinegar
Article Open Access

Control of Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae) by trapping with banana vinegar

  • Carlos Rodriguez , Carolina Calvo , Francisco Gonzalez and Cam Oehlschlager EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: October 27, 2025
Download Article (PDF)
Florida Entomologist
From the journal Florida Entomologist Volume 108 Issue 1

Abstract

Vinegar is considered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to be a minimum risk trap additive, and as Drosophila melanogaster Meigen (Diptera: Drosophilidae) is attracted to vinegar, this study was conducted to determine the efficiency of removal of D. melanogaster from a standard size room using traps containing banana vinegar and a minimum risk surfactant. The goal was to achieve a significant reduction of an initial D. melanogaster population at deployment levels of less than 1 trap/m2 of floor surface area. We found that four cylindrical traps containing banana vinegar captured an average of 71 out of 100 released D. melanogaster during a 10-replicate trial in a 2.65 m high × 3.05 m × 4.8 m (38.8 m3 volume, 14.64 m2 floor area) room. This result shows that using these traps only 1 trap/3.66 m2 of floor area results in capture of 71 % of D. melanogaster.

Resumen

Dado que la United States Environmental Protection Agency considera que el vinagre es un aditivo de trampa de riesgo mínimo, y Drosopila melanogaster Meigen (Diptera: Drosophilidae) se siente atraída por el vinagre, se realizó este estudio para determinar la eficiencia de la eliminación de D. melanogaster de un habitación de tamaño estánada utilizando trampas que contenían vinagre de plátano y un surfactante de riesgo mínimo. El objetivo era lograr una reducción significativa de una población inicial de D. melanogaster en niveles de despliegue de menos de 1 trampa/m2 de superficie del suelo. Encontramos que cuatro trampas cilíndricas que contenían vinagre de plátano capturaron un promedio de 71 de100 D. melanogaster liberadas durante un ensayo de 10 réplicas en una habitación de 2,65 m de alto × 3,05 m × 4,8 m (38,8 m3 de volumen, 14,64 m2 de superficie del suelo). Este resultado muestra que el uso de estas trampas solo 1 trampa/3,66 m2 de superficie de suelo de como resultado la captura del 71 % de D. melanogaster.

Keywords: Drosophila melanogaster ; trap; vinegar; control
Palabras clave: Drosophila melanogaster ; trampa; vinagre; control

1 Introduction

Drosophila melanogaster Meigen (Diptera: Drosophilidae) populations accumulate in areas where sugar containing fruits are processed or stored (Barrows 1907; Mallis 1969). Ripe fruit is more attractive to D. melanogaster than unripe fruit (e.g. Kim et al. 2023) as the former is likely to be infected by yeast and the odors from fermenting fruit are more attractive to D. melanogaster than unripe fruit (Barrows 1907; Becher et al. 2012; Lebreton et al. 2012; Mallis 1969). Indeed, yeasts are beneficial to D. melanogaster development (Becher et al. 2012). In comparative trials mango and bananas usually ranked as the most attractive fruits (Zhu et al. 2003) but tomatoes (usually used as vegetable) were more attractive than bananas in one study (Egbon and Omoruwa 2022).

As D. melanogaster can carry pathogenic organisms there are health risks associated with populations of D. melanogaster in areas of food preparation (Black et al. 2018; Nmorsi et al. 2007). Several commercially available monitoring traps specifically target D. melanogaster (Birmingham et al. 2011). Most monitoring traps contain solutions of acetic acid and a surfactant (Terro/Woodstream®, Lititz, Pennsylvania, USA; Natural Catch®, BugTraps®, Milwaukie, Oregon, USA). Acetic acid is a known attractant to D. melanogaster (Ishii et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2023; Reed 1938). Another format for a fruit fly monitoring trap consists of a mixture of yeast and powdered banana dampened to initiate fermentation (Raid®, SC Johnson, Racine, Wisconsin, USA). A further formulation containing banana vinegar (Vector 960®, sold by BASF, Florham Park, New Jersey, manufactured by Chemtica International, Sto Domingo, Heredia, Costa Rica) also is available. Volatile emissions of the Vector 960® have been examined in detail but mixtures of the identified volatiles have been shown to be less attractive than the banana vinegar from which they were obtained (Stökl et al. 2010).

Mass trapping D. melanogaster to control its populations has been investigated. While some of the commercial traps listed above imply substantial control of D. melanogaster no experimental evidence supports control by mass trapping. A previous study showed that baits of malt extract as well as malt extract combined with ethanol, diacetyl and indole achieved a high level of capture of a confined population of D. melanogaster (West 1961).

Traps emitting volatiles of attractive fruits performed well in small cages but when the same volatiles were used as bait in traps in a grocery store setting only 30 % of available flies were captured (Zhu et al. 2003). Fruit baits in clear plastic soda bottles (from which the tops were removed and then replaced inverted) in a large cage (3.0 m × 3.0 m × 1.5 m) showed that at ∼3 traps/m2 a majority of D. melanogaster were captured (Egbon and Omoruwa 2022).

The purpose of the present study was to determine if Vector 960® fruit fly monitoring traps formulated to contain only minimum risk ingredients listed in tables 1 and 2 of United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Code of Federal Regulations (National Archives and Records Administration 2025) and modified to have more entry points in the lid (Figure 1) captured a high percentage of D. melanogaster that were released into a room (Figure 2) with four traps containing banana vinegar, preservatives and a surfactant.

Figure 1: Drosophila trap used in present trials.
Figure 1:

Drosophila trap used in present trials.

Figure 2: Diagram of Drosophila melanogaster mass trapping test room, with eight blocks holding four traps with banana vinegar and four with water.
Figure 2:

Diagram of Drosophila melanogaster mass trapping test room, with eight blocks holding four traps with banana vinegar and four with water.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study facility

The test room was in Tures, Sto Domingo, Heredia, Costa Rica 1,207 m.a.s.l. (9.98522 °N, 84.05861 °E). It was inside another structure and was 2.65 m high × 3.05 m × 4.8 m with a 1 m × 2 m door in the longest side (Figure 2). Tests were run between August and November 2024, which is the season in Costa Rica of the most precipitation. Daytime high temperatures ranged from 24 °C to 30 °C with an average of 27 °C. The ceiling of the room was a semitransparent white plastic mesh. Light was provided to the test room through a window in the exterior of the building into which the test room was built and the semitransparent mesh. The walls of the test room were concrete composite board, and the floor was concrete. No surfaces were painted. In the room were eight concrete building blocks 10.2 cm × 20.4 cm × 41.0 cm, which were arranged in two rows aligned with the 4.8 m wall and 60 cm from this wall. These blocks were 1.9 m apart with 85 cm between each block at each end of a row and the 3.05 m walls. This resulted in 1.6 m between rows.

2.2 Experimental insects

As operational trapping D. melanogaster requires trapping mixed sex and age populations, D. melanogaster were mass reared to produce populations that were of mixed age and sex. Rearing was on overripe bananas in 200 L plastic drums (∼30 cm diameter opening) with loose fitting lids. Barrels were located outside the building that contained the test room and sheltered from rain and direct sunlight. To obtain D. melanogaster for trials the drum lid was removed, and a semitransparent plastic fine mesh bag (50 × 50 cm) was quickly placed over the top of the barrel until numerous flies were inside the bag. The bag was then closed by hand, the drum lid replaced, and the bag placed at −20 °C for 1 min to slow the motion of flies. The bag was removed and an orifice created that allowed a small 50 mL plastic centrifuge tube to be inserted into the bag. The tube possessed a 5 mm diameter hole in the end inserted into the mesh bag containing flies. The opposite end of the centrifuge tube was fitted with a screw-on lid through which was inserted a 0.125 cm diameter plastic tube containing a non-woven plastic plug that prevented flies in the centrifuge tube from passing through the tubing. The distal end of the 0.125 cm diameter plastic tube was connected to a dry chemical vacuum pump (Welch Dry Fast Ultra Diaphragm vacuum pump Model 2032) that was used to create a low vacuum. Flies were singly pulled into the centrifuge tube until 50 flies were in the tube at which time the vacuum pump was turned off and the centrifuge tube was brought to and emptied into the test room. This process was conducted twice for each trial, so each trial tested the response of 100 flies.

2.3 Traps

Traps were cylindrical plastic cups (6.0 cm diameter and 4.1 cm high) with a snap-on lid with 18 entry holes of 0.6 cm diameter (modified Vector 960® traps by placing an additional nine holes in the lid, Figure 1). The liquid bait was 40 mL of banana vinegar to which were added minimum risk preservatives and surfactants (National Archives and Records Administration 2025, see tables 1 and 2). The EPA created tables 1 and 2 during its evaluation of chemicals used in pesticide formulations specifically to identify inert additives (National Archives and Records Administration 2025, see table 1) and active additives (National Archives and Records Administration 2025, see table 2) of sufficiently low toxicity that their presence in a formulation does not trigger requirement for EPA registration of a product even when the formulation controlled an insect population. EPA considers that for ingredients on these minimum risk ingredient lists there is sufficient data to conclude that their use would not negatively impact the environment or be harmful to humans under normal use.

2.4 Study design

Each trial tested four traps containing 40 mL of banana vinegar and four traps containing 40 mL of distilled water. Concrete building blocks were placed on the cement floor so that 10.2 cm × 20.4 cm sides were exposed to receive traps. One trap was placed on each block. Adjacent blocks received a trap of different contents (i.e. an ABAB deployment was used). Traps were placed in the test room the same day that flies were released. Seven days after the release, captured flies in any trap were counted. Traps with banana vinegar and water were placed in alternate positions for each subsequent test. We replaced all traps and cleaned the test room between each of the 10 replicates.

Temperatures were recorded daily using a battery operated SwitchBot Meter Plus, Thermometer Hygrometer Plus sensor that allowed wireless download of temperature data to smart phone or computer and identification of daily maximum temperatures, which are presented in Figure 3.

2.5 Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis used Infostat, National University of Córdoba, Argentina. We initially determined for each replicate, by a Shapiro-Wilks test, that the distribution of captured flies in traps was non-normal. Then we applied a Mann-Whitney test to compare median captures in the traps containing banana vinegar with those containing water in each replicate.

To assess the statistical relationship between captures and temperature we grouped replicates conducted at temperatures within a 2 °C range as shown in Figure 3. First, we determined if for a given temperature range (high, medium or low) the capture data exhibited a non-normal distribution when a normality test (modified Shapiro-Wilks) was applied. We applied the Kruskal Wallis test (nonparametric ANOVA) to compare captures in replicates 1, 2 and 3 that were at the highest temperatures with captures in replicates 4, 5 and 6 that were at the medium temperatures and captures in replicates 7, 8, 9 and 10 that were conducted at the the coolest temperatures.

We further conducted a modified Shapiro-Wilks analysis to determine if captures in individual replicates exhibited normal distributions. This analysis revealed that within replicates captures in individual traps were normally distributed. We then conducted T-tests to determine if there were statistical differences among captures of individual replicates.

3 Results

No flies were captured in traps containing only water. The four traps containing banana vinegar captured an average of 71 (SEM = 3.63) of the 100 released flies (Figure 3). No replicate captured less than 60 of the 100 flies released.

Figure 3: Total number of Drosophila melanogaster in four modified Vector 960® traps each containing 40 mL of banana vinegar made with minimum risk ingredients. ANOVA for all replicates versus water control in which no flies were captured, df = 1, F = 381.25, p < 0.0001. Significant differences between banana vinegar and water traps indicated by different letters on top of the capture numbers on top of the bars. Replicates conducted at higher temperatures on the left and those at lower temperatures on the right. Statistical analysis of captures in high temperatures (replicates 1, 2 and 3) versus captures in medium temperatures (replicates 4, 5 and 6) versus replicates at low temperatures (7, 8, 9 and 10) are shown above the capture bars (different letters indicate significant differences).
Figure 3:

Total number of Drosophila melanogaster in four modified Vector 960® traps each containing 40 mL of banana vinegar made with minimum risk ingredients. ANOVA for all replicates versus water control in which no flies were captured, df = 1, F = 381.25, p < 0.0001. Significant differences between banana vinegar and water traps indicated by different letters on top of the capture numbers on top of the bars. Replicates conducted at higher temperatures on the left and those at lower temperatures on the right. Statistical analysis of captures in high temperatures (replicates 1, 2 and 3) versus captures in medium temperatures (replicates 4, 5 and 6) versus replicates at low temperatures (7, 8, 9 and 10) are shown above the capture bars (different letters indicate significant differences).

We observed that when ambient temperatures were higher the percentage of released flies that were recaptured was slightly higher. For example, when temperatures were between 28 °C and 30 °C captures were approximately 80 while captures were approximately 70 when temperatures were between 24 °C and 26 °C. Statistical analysis (Figure 3) indicated that the captures in replicates conducted at the highest temperatures (replicates 1, 2 and 3) were statistically higher than captures observed during the medium temperature periods (replicates 4, 5 and 6) and captures observed during the lowest temperature periods (replicates 7, 8, 9 and 10) were not significantly different than those observed at the previous two temperature ranges. We concluded from this analysis that there is a tendency for higher captures at higher temperatures but that within the temperature ranges available in this experiment these differences were not consistently statistically significant. An additional statistical analysis comparing captures of traps in each replicate revealed all replicates captured statistically equivalent numbers of flies (n = 4 for each replicate, p > 0.05).

4 Discussion

Monitoring D. melanogaster by trapping is commonly practiced in many indoor venues (e.g., Birmingham et al. 2011). By contrast, in the few studies where traps have been examined for their ability to remove a significant proportion of a resident population (mass trapping) it has been reported that only minor reductions in population are observed (Zhu et al. 2003). If traps are deployed at more than 1 trap/m2 of floor area they effectively remove a large proportion of a resident population (Egbon and Omoruwa 2022). In the present study traps containing banana vinegar were capable of removing a relatively high proportion of a D. melanogaster population when the traps were deployed at a floor area 1 trap/3.66 m2 , which corresponds to 1 trap/9.6 m3 in the test room. At this density mass trapping of D. melanogaster is more economically feasible than if multiple traps per m2 are required. In considering the efficacy of the present trap it should is worthy of mention that devices such as this are registered with individual states and not through the EPA. Guidance on expected efficacy (AAPCO 2019) indicates that 60 % of a pest such as D. melanogaster should be captured in a replicated test for a population reduction device to be considered efficacious if minimum risk ingredients are used in the device to attract and kill the pest. In the current trial a trap (Figure 1) containing only banana vinegar and ingredients considered to be minimum risk by the EPA captured an average of 71 % of released flies when there were four traps/14.64 m2 (38.8 m3). Thus, each trap approximately removes 71 % of adult D. melanogaster from 3.66 m2 of standard indoor floor area. This capture rate suggests good efficiency for these traps in enclosed structures.

The most prominent breeding grounds for D. melanogaster are commercial food storage areas (grocery stores), food preparation areas (restaurants) and residential composters. According to a recent study the average shelf space dedicated to fruits and vegetables in stores offering these foods is 117 m (Farley et al. 2009). Using a 0.7 m shelf depth one would estimate that shelves would have ∼70 % less D. melanogaster using approximately 22 traps at (1 trap/3.66 m2). The same reasoning could be used in restaurant fruit preparation areas for which size estimates are not available. Residential composts usually vary in size depending on the number of people generating compost. A cubic meter is an average size for most households (NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 2025). Placement of traps indoors is recommended if fruit fly populations become problematic during composting (NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council 2025). As kitchen populations of D. melanogaster would be the most probable from indoor activities as well as migration from composting it would be appropriate to locate traps in a kitchen. Kitchen counters are normally 0.63 m wide, and the only estimate located gives 3.9 m as a normal kitchen counter length (question asked on Quora, www.quora.com). The foregoing translates into two traps to lower D. melanogaster populations by 70 % in the average kitchen. Thus, the presently tested fruit fly trap should be of use in management of D. melanogaster in many urban areas where it is problematic.

Corresponding author: Cam Oehlschlager, Department of Research & Development, ChemTica Internacional S.A., Calle El Beneficio, Santa Rosa, Santo Domingo, Heredia, 40603, Costa Rica, E-mail:

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Brian Rodriguez for technical assistance.

  1. Research ethics: Not applicable.

  2. Informed consent: Not applicable.

  3. Author contributions: Carlos Rodriguez execution of trapping, Carolina Calvo preparation of baits, Francisco Gonzalez project coordination, and Cam Oehlschlager manuscript preparation.

  4. Use of Large Language Models, AI and Machine Learning Tools: No AI Large Language Models or Machine Learning Tools were used in this study.

  5. Conflict of interest: All authors are employees of Chemtica Internacional.

  6. Research funding: No external funding was received for this study.

  7. Data availability: All data is available from Chemtica Internacional.

References

AAPCO (American Association of Pesticide Control Officials). (2019). FIFRA minimum risk pesticides – 25(b) product efficacy data guidance, Available at: https://aapco.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/efficacy-data-guidelines-1-22-19.pdf (Accessed 6 August 2025).Search in Google Scholar

Barrows, W.M. (1907). The reactions of the pomace fly, Drosophila ampelophila Loew, to odorous substances. J. Exp. Zool. 4: 515–537, https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.1400040403.Search in Google Scholar

Becher, P.G., Flick, G., Rozpędowska, E., Schmidt, A., Hagman, A., Lebreton, S., Larsson, M.C., Hansson, B.S., Piškur, J., Witzgall, P., et al.. (2012). Chemical yeast, not fruit volatiles mediate Drosophila melanogaster attraction, oviposition and development. Funct. Ecol. 26: 822–828, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.02006.Search in Google Scholar

Birmingham, A.L., Kovacs, E., Lafontaine, J.P., Avelino, N., Borden, J.H., Andreller, I.S., and Gries, G. (2011). A new trap and lure for Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 104: 1018–1023, https://doi.org/10.1603/EC10432.Search in Google Scholar

Black, E.P., Hinrichs, G.J., Barcay, S.J., and Gardner, D.B. (2018). Fruit flies as potential vectors of foodborne illness. J. Food Prot. 81: 509–514, https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-255.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Egbon, I.N. and Omoruwa, L. (2022). Multiple baits, exposure time and trap design influenced trapping efficiency of fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Res. Int. 19: 4478–4487.Search in Google Scholar

Farley, T.A., Rice, J., Nicholas Bodor, J., Cohen, D.A., Bluthenthal, R.N., and Rose, D. (2009). Measuring the food environment: shelf space of fruits, vegetables, and snack foods in stores. J. Urban Health: Bull. N. Y. Acad. Med. 86: 672–682, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-009-9390-3.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Ishii, Y., Akasaka, N., Goda, I., Sakoda, H., and Fujiwara, S. (2015). Effective trapping of fruit flies with cultures of metabolically modified acetic acid bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 81: 2265–2273, https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03678-14.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Kim, H., Kim, Y.-H., Roh, G.H., and Kim, Y.H. (2023). Comparison of preference for chemicals associated with fruit fermentation between Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila suzukii and between virgin and mated D. melanogaster. Insects 14: 382, https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14040382.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

Lebreton, S., Becher, P.S., Hansson, B.S., and Witzgall, P. (2012). Attraction of Drosophila melanogaster males to food-related and fly odours. J. Insect Physiol. 58: 125–129, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinsphys.2011.10.009.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Mallis, A. (1969). Handbook of pest control, 5th ed. MacNair Dorland Co, New York.Search in Google Scholar

National Archives and Records Administration (2025). 40 CFR 152.25 – exemptions for pesticides of a character not requiring FIFRA regulation. National Archives and Records Administration, Code of Federal Regulations, Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-152/subpart-B/section-152.25 (Accessed 5 August 2025).Search in Google Scholar

Nmorsi, O.P.G., Agbozele, G., and Ukwandu, N. (2007). Some aspects of epidemiology of filth flies: Musca domestica, Musca domestica vicina, Drosophilia melanogaster and associated bacteria pathogens in Ekpoma, Nigeria. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 7: 107–117, https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2006.0539.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). (2025). Composting 101. Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, New York, Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/composting-101 (Accessed 5 May 2025).Search in Google Scholar

Reed, M.R. (1938). The olfactory reactions of Drosophila melanogaster Meigen to the products of fermenting banana. Physiol. Zool. 11: 317–325, https://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.11.3.30151465.Search in Google Scholar

Stökl, J., Strutz, A., Dafni, A., Svatos, A., Doubsky, J., Knaden, M., Sachse, S., Hansson, B.S., and Stensmyr, M.C. (2010). A deceptive pollination system targeting drosophilids through olfactory mimicry of yeast. Curr. Biol. 20: 1846–1852, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.09.033.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

West, A.S. (1961). Chemical attractants for adult Drosophila species. J. Econ. Entomol. 54: 677–681, https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/54.4.677.Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, J., Park, K.-C., and Baker, T.C. (2003). Identification of odors from overripe mango that attract vinegar flies Drosophila melanogaster. J. Chem. Ecol. 29: 899–909, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022931816351.10.1023/A:1022931816351Search in Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/flaent-2025-0007).

Received: 2025-02-20
Accepted: 2025-07-11
Published Online: 2025-10-27

© 2025 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. Dynamics of citrus pest populations following a major freeze in northern Florida
  4. Control of Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae) by trapping with banana vinegar
  5. Establishment, distribution, and preliminary phenological trends of a new planthopper in the genus Patara (Hemiptera: Derbidae) in South Florida, United States of America
  6. Comparative evaluation of the infestation of five varieties of citrus by the larvae of Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae)
  7. Impact of land use on the density of Bulimulus bonariensis (Stylommatophora: Bulimulidae) and its parasitic mite, Austreynetes sp. (Trombidiformes: Ereynetidae)
  8. First record of native seed beetle Stator limbatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on invasive earleaf acacia in Florida
  9. Establishment and monitoring of a sentinel garden of Asian tree species in Florida to assess potential insect pest risks
  10. Parasitism of Halyomorpha halys and Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) sentinel eggs in Central Florida
  11. Genetic differentiation of three populations of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in Mexico
  12. Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) associated with blueberry cultivation in Central Mexico
  13. First report of Phidotricha erigens (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: Epipaschiinae) injuring mango inflorescences in Puerto Rico
  14. Seed predation of Sabal palmetto, Sabal mexicana and Sabal uresana (Arecaceae) by the bruchid Caryobruchus gleditsiae (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), with new host and distribution records
  15. Genetic variation of rice stink bugs, Oebalus spp. (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from Southeastern United States and Cuba
  16. Selecting Coriandrum sativum (Apiaceae) varieties to promote conservation biological control of crop pests in south Florida
  17. First record of Mymarommatidae (Hymenoptera) from the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
  18. First field validation of Ontsira mellipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) as a potential biological control agent for Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in South Carolina
  19. Field evaluation of α-copaene enriched natural oil lure for detection of male Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in area-wide monitoring programs: results from Tunisia, Costa Rica and Hawaii
  20. Abundance of Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagnall) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and other thrips in commercial snap bean fields in the Homestead Agricultural Area (HAA)
  21. Performance of Salvinia molesta (Salviniae: Salviniaceae) and its biological control agent Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in freshwater and saline environments
  22. Natural arsenal of Magnolia sarcotesta: insecticidal activity against the leaf-cutting ant Atta mexicana (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
  23. Ethanol concentration can influence the outcomes of insecticide evaluation of ambrosia beetle attacks using wood bolts
  24. Post-release support of host range predictions for two Lygodium microphyllum biological control agents
  25. Missing jewels: the decline of a wood-nesting forest bee, Augochlora pura (Hymenoptera: Halictidae), in northern Georgia
  26. Biological response of Rhopalosiphum padi and Sipha flava (Hemiptera: Aphididae) changes over generations
  27. Argopistes tsekooni (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a new natural enemy of Chinese privet in North America: identification, establishment, and host range
  28. A non-overwintering urban population of the African fig fly (Diptera: Drosophilidae) impacts the reproductive output of locally adapted fruit flies
  29. Fitness of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on four economically important host fruits from Fujian Province, China
  30. Carambola fruit fly in Brazil: new host and first record of associated parasitoids
  31. Establishment and range expansion of invasive Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: Phycitinae) in Texas
  32. A micro-anatomical investigation of dark and light-adapted eyes of Chilades pandava (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)
  33. Scientific Notes
  34. Evaluation of food attractants based on fig fruit for field capture of the black fig fly, Silba adipata (Diptera: Lonchaeidae)
  35. Exploring the potential of Amblyseius largoensis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) as a biological control agent against Aceria litchii (Acari: Eriophyidae) on lychee plants
  36. Early stragglers of periodical cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) found in Louisiana
  37. Attraction of released male Mediterranean fruit flies to trimedlure and an α-copaene-containing natural oil: effects of lure age and distance
  38. Co-infestation with Drosophila suzukii and Zaprionus indianus (Diptera: Drosophilidae): a threat for berry crops in Morelos, Mexico
  39. Observation of brood size and altricial development in Centruroides hentzi (Arachnida: Buthidae) in Florida, USA
  40. New quarantine cold treatment for medfly Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in pomegranates
  41. A new invasive pest in Mexico: the presence of Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in chili pepper fields
  42. Acceptance of fire ant baits by nontarget ants in Florida and California
  43. Examining phenotypic variations in an introduced population of the invasive dung beetle Digitonthophagus gazella (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)
  44. Note on the nesting biology of Epimelissodes aegis LaBerge (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
  45. Mass rearing protocol and density trials of Lilioceris egena (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a biological control agent of air potato
  46. Cardinal predation of the invasive Jorō spider Trichophila clavata (Araneae: Nephilidae) in Georgia
  47. Book Reviews
  48. Review: Harbach, R.E. 2024. The Composition and Nature of the Culicidae (Mosquitoes). Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International and the Royal Entomological Society, United Kingdom. ISBN 9781800627994
  49. Retraction
  50. Retraction of: Examining phenotypic variations in an introduced population of the invasive dung beetle Digitonthophagus gazella (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)
https://doi.org/10.1515/flaent-2025-0007
Keywords for this article
Drosophila melanogaster; trap; vinegar; control
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Research Articles
  3. Dynamics of citrus pest populations following a major freeze in northern Florida
  4. Control of Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae) by trapping with banana vinegar
  5. Establishment, distribution, and preliminary phenological trends of a new planthopper in the genus Patara (Hemiptera: Derbidae) in South Florida, United States of America
  6. Comparative evaluation of the infestation of five varieties of citrus by the larvae of Anastrepha ludens (Diptera: Tephritidae)
  7. Impact of land use on the density of Bulimulus bonariensis (Stylommatophora: Bulimulidae) and its parasitic mite, Austreynetes sp. (Trombidiformes: Ereynetidae)
  8. First record of native seed beetle Stator limbatus (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) on invasive earleaf acacia in Florida
  9. Establishment and monitoring of a sentinel garden of Asian tree species in Florida to assess potential insect pest risks
  10. Parasitism of Halyomorpha halys and Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) sentinel eggs in Central Florida
  11. Genetic differentiation of three populations of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in Mexico
  12. Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) associated with blueberry cultivation in Central Mexico
  13. First report of Phidotricha erigens (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: Epipaschiinae) injuring mango inflorescences in Puerto Rico
  14. Seed predation of Sabal palmetto, Sabal mexicana and Sabal uresana (Arecaceae) by the bruchid Caryobruchus gleditsiae (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), with new host and distribution records
  15. Genetic variation of rice stink bugs, Oebalus spp. (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) from Southeastern United States and Cuba
  16. Selecting Coriandrum sativum (Apiaceae) varieties to promote conservation biological control of crop pests in south Florida
  17. First record of Mymarommatidae (Hymenoptera) from the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador
  18. First field validation of Ontsira mellipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) as a potential biological control agent for Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in South Carolina
  19. Field evaluation of α-copaene enriched natural oil lure for detection of male Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in area-wide monitoring programs: results from Tunisia, Costa Rica and Hawaii
  20. Abundance of Megalurothrips usitatus (Bagnall) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) and other thrips in commercial snap bean fields in the Homestead Agricultural Area (HAA)
  21. Performance of Salvinia molesta (Salviniae: Salviniaceae) and its biological control agent Cyrtobagous salviniae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in freshwater and saline environments
  22. Natural arsenal of Magnolia sarcotesta: insecticidal activity against the leaf-cutting ant Atta mexicana (Hymenoptera: Formicidae)
  23. Ethanol concentration can influence the outcomes of insecticide evaluation of ambrosia beetle attacks using wood bolts
  24. Post-release support of host range predictions for two Lygodium microphyllum biological control agents
  25. Missing jewels: the decline of a wood-nesting forest bee, Augochlora pura (Hymenoptera: Halictidae), in northern Georgia
  26. Biological response of Rhopalosiphum padi and Sipha flava (Hemiptera: Aphididae) changes over generations
  27. Argopistes tsekooni (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a new natural enemy of Chinese privet in North America: identification, establishment, and host range
  28. A non-overwintering urban population of the African fig fly (Diptera: Drosophilidae) impacts the reproductive output of locally adapted fruit flies
  29. Fitness of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) (Diptera: Tephritidae) on four economically important host fruits from Fujian Province, China
  30. Carambola fruit fly in Brazil: new host and first record of associated parasitoids
  31. Establishment and range expansion of invasive Cactoblastis cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae: Phycitinae) in Texas
  32. A micro-anatomical investigation of dark and light-adapted eyes of Chilades pandava (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)
  33. Scientific Notes
  34. Evaluation of food attractants based on fig fruit for field capture of the black fig fly, Silba adipata (Diptera: Lonchaeidae)
  35. Exploring the potential of Amblyseius largoensis (Acari: Phytoseiidae) as a biological control agent against Aceria litchii (Acari: Eriophyidae) on lychee plants
  36. Early stragglers of periodical cicadas (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) found in Louisiana
  37. Attraction of released male Mediterranean fruit flies to trimedlure and an α-copaene-containing natural oil: effects of lure age and distance
  38. Co-infestation with Drosophila suzukii and Zaprionus indianus (Diptera: Drosophilidae): a threat for berry crops in Morelos, Mexico
  39. Observation of brood size and altricial development in Centruroides hentzi (Arachnida: Buthidae) in Florida, USA
  40. New quarantine cold treatment for medfly Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) in pomegranates
  41. A new invasive pest in Mexico: the presence of Thrips parvispinus (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) in chili pepper fields
  42. Acceptance of fire ant baits by nontarget ants in Florida and California
  43. Examining phenotypic variations in an introduced population of the invasive dung beetle Digitonthophagus gazella (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)
  44. Note on the nesting biology of Epimelissodes aegis LaBerge (Hymenoptera: Apidae)
  45. Mass rearing protocol and density trials of Lilioceris egena (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae), a biological control agent of air potato
  46. Cardinal predation of the invasive Jorō spider Trichophila clavata (Araneae: Nephilidae) in Georgia
  47. Book Reviews
  48. Review: Harbach, R.E. 2024. The Composition and Nature of the Culicidae (Mosquitoes). Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International and the Royal Entomological Society, United Kingdom. ISBN 9781800627994
  49. Retraction
  50. Retraction of: Examining phenotypic variations in an introduced population of the invasive dung beetle Digitonthophagus gazella (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 16.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/flaent-2025-0007/html
Scroll to top button