Fruit Flies pp 165-171 | Cite as

Levels of Quantitative Investigation of Tephritid Fly Foraging Behavior

  • R. J. Prokopy
Conference paper

Abstract

To comprehend thoroughly the foraging behavior of a fruit fly or any animal is a daunting challenge. For more than two decades, behavioral ecologists have been examining, often in considerable depth, how individuals of a variety of animals adjust foraging activities in response to the characteristics and distribution of one or another essential type of resource such as food, water, or breeding sites. Often, considerable progress has been made teasing apart proximate factors that shape movement patterns of individuals in search of a resource during a limited time period. It has proven to be much more difficult to understand just how the pattern of observed foraging behavior might enhance accumulated lifetime fitness (expected number of progeny).

Keywords

Host Tree Oviposition Site High Quality Food Host Fruit Quantitative Fashion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aluja, M., Hendrichs, J., and Cabrera, M. 1983. Behavior and interactions between Anastrepha ludens and A. obliqua on a field caged mango tree. p. 122–133 in R. Cavalloro (ed.) “Fruit Flies of Economic Importance.” Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  2. Aluja, M., Prokopy, R.J., Elkinton, J.S., and Laurence, F. 1989. Novel approach for tracking and quantifying the movement patterns of insects in three dimensions under seminatural conditions. Env. Ent. 18: 1–7.Google Scholar
  3. Arita, L.H. and Kaneshiro, K.Y. 1985. The dynamics of the lek system and mating success in males of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata. Proc. Hawaiian Ent. Soc. 25: 40–49.Google Scholar
  4. Bierbaum, T.J. and Bush, G.L. 1988. Divergence in key host examining and acceptance behaviors of the sibling species Rhagoletis mendax and R. pomonella. p. 26–35 in M.T. Ali Niazee (ed.) “Ecology and Management of Economically Important Fruit Flies”. Oregon St. Univ. Agric. Expt. Sta. Special Rept. 830.Google Scholar
  5. Diehl, S.R., Prokopy, R.J., and Henderson, S. 1985. The role of stimuli associated with branches and foliage in host selection by Rhagoletis pomonella. p. 191–196. In: R. Cavalloro (ed.) “Fruit Flies of Economic Importance ‘84” Balkema, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Diehl, S.R. and Prokopy, R.J. 1986. Host selection behavior differences between the fruit fly sibling species Rhagoletis pomonella and R. mendax. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 79: 266–271.Google Scholar
  7. Hendrichs, J., Prokopy, R.J., Prokopy, J., and Fletcher, B. 1990. How do apple maggot flies search for food on leaf surfaces? Massachusetts Fruit Notes 5: 6–9.Google Scholar
  8. Houston, A., Clark, C., McNamara, J. and Mangel, M. 1988. Dynamic models in behavioral and evolutionary ecology. Nature 332: 29–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mangel, M. 1987. Modelling behavioral decisions of insects. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics 72: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mangel, M. 1989a. An evolutionary interpretation of the “motivation” to oviposit. J. Evol. Biol. 2: 157–172.Google Scholar
  11. Mangel, M. 1989b. Evolution of host selection in parasitoids: does the state of the parasitoid matter? Amer. Nat. 133: 688–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mangel, M. and Clark, C. 1986. Towards a unified foraging theory. Ecology 67: 1127–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mangel, M. and Roitberg, B.D. 1989. Dynamic information and host acceptance by a tephritid fruit fly. Ecol. Ent. 14: 181–189.Google Scholar
  14. Miller, J.R. and Strickler, K.L. 1984. Finding and accepting host plants. p. 128–157 in W.J. Bell and RT. Carde (eds.) “Chemical Ecology of Insects”. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Papaj, D.R. and Prokopy, R.J. 1988. The effect of prior adult experience on components of habitat preference in the apple maggot fly (Rhagoletis pomonella). Oecologia 76: 538–543.Google Scholar
  16. Papaj, D.R., Roitberg, B.D., and Opp, S.B. 1989. Serial effects of host infestation on egg allocation by the Mediterranean fruit fly: a rule of thumb and its functional significance. J. Anim. Ecol. 58: 955–970.Google Scholar
  17. Prokopy, R.J. and Hendrichs, J. 1979. Mating behavior of Ceratitis capitata on a field caged host tree. Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 72: 642–648.Google Scholar
  18. Prokopy, R.J. and Roitberg, B.D. 1989. Fruit fly foraging behavior. p. 293–306 in A.S. Robinson and G. Hooper (eds.) “Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control” Elsevier Science Publ., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Prokopy, RJ., Papaj, D.R., Opp, S.B., and Wong, T.T.Y. 1987. Intra-tree foraging behavior of Ceratitis capitataa flies in relation to host fruit density and quality. Ent. Exp. Appl. 45: 251–258.Google Scholar
  20. Prokopy, R.J., Aluja, M., and Wong, T.T.Y. 1989. Foraging behavior of laboratory cultured Mediterranean fruit flies on field-caged host trees. Proc. Hawaiian Ent. Soc. 29: 103–109.Google Scholar
  21. Robinson, A.S. and Hooper, G. 1989. Fruit Flies: Their Biology, Natural Enemies and Control. Elsevier Science Publ., Amsterdam (2 volumes).Google Scholar
  22. Roitberg, B.D. 1985. Search dynamics in fruit parasitic insects. J. Insect Physiol. 31: 865–872. Roitberg, B.D. and Mangel, M. 1988. On the evolutionary ecology of marking pheromones. Evol. Ecol. 2: 289–315.Google Scholar
  23. Roitberg, B.D. and Prokopy, R.J. 1982. Influence of inter-tree distance on the foraging behavior of Rhagoletis pomonella in the field. Ecol. Ent. 7: 437–443.Google Scholar
  24. Roitberg, B.D. and Prokopy, R.J. 1984. Host visitation sequence as a determinant of search persistence in fruit parasitic tephritid flies. Oecologia 62: 7–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roitberg, B.D., van Lenteren, J.C., van Alphen, J.J.M., Galis, F., and Prokopy, R.J. 1982. Foraging behavior of Rhagoletis pomonella, a parasite of hawthorn in nature. J. Anim. Ecol. 51: 307–325.Google Scholar
  26. Sivinski, J. 1989. Lekking and the small-scale distribution of the sexes in the Caribbean fruit fly, Anastreplta suspensa. J. Insect Behay. 2: 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. J. Prokopy

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations