Printer Friendly

Ecological niche difference associated with varied ethanol tolerance between Drosophila suzukii and Drosophila melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae).

Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) is one of the few Drosophila species that is able to lay eggs and feed on healthy ripening fruit. More than 60 plant species have been identified as its primary host (Kenis et al. 2016; Lee et al. 2015), many of which are commercial fruit crops widely grown across the world. Drosophila suzukii larvae feed on the fresh fruit and have caused 40 to 80% loss of fruit yield in America (Sasaki & Sato 1995; Mitsui et al. 2006). In contrast, D. melanogaster (Diptera: Drosophilidae) and many other drosophilids prefer to lay eggs and feed on rotten fruit (Milan et al. 2012). Decaying fruits contain carbohydrates that are decomposed into short carbon chain alcohols, such as methyl alcohol, ethanol, propyl alcohol and butanol, which can attract the saprophagous Drosophila species to lay eggs. For instance, ethanol levels in natural D. melanogaster habitats range up to 6% ethanol by volume (Gibson et al. 1981; McKechnie & Morgan 1982). Drosophila melanogaster possesses many adaptations that allow it to survive and thrive in ethanol-rich environments (Mercot et al. 1994; Milan et al. 2012; Devineni & Heberlein 2013).

Many studies have reported the resistance mechanism of Drosophilidae species to alcohol. Behavior, metabolic rate, body mass, and development times of D. melanogaster are sensitive to ethanol (Castaneda & Nespolo 2013). Stimulant response is a conserved behavioral response to ethanol among arthropod species, seen in 69.2% of Drosophilidae species (Kliethermes 2015). Female D. melanogaster preferentially oviposit on food substrates containing high concentration of ethanol, a process that is regulated by dopaminergic neural circuits (Azanchia et al. 2013). Ethanol can rapidly penetrate the cell membranes of insects, therefore increasing excretion and reducing absorption of ethanol are not viable mechanisms for ethanol resistance in insects (Harris et al. 2008). Adaptations to high levels of ethanol are often achieved by modifications in the metabolic detoxification system in D. melanogaster (Fry 2014). During ethanol detoxification metabolism, ethanol is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH) and into acetic acid by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH), then into acetyl CoA. Two products of ethanol catabolism, acetaldehyde and acetate, have deleterious effects on the animal's fitness (Deitrich 2004). Acetyl CoA is the final product of both carbohydrate and fat metabolism. Two well-studied enzymes, ADH and ALDH, are related to the detoxification of ethanol in D. melanogaster (Fry 2014). Adh and Aldh mutant lines show significant decrease in alcohol tolerance compared to wild type individuals (Fry & Saweikis, 2006). Natural D. melanogaster populations maintained on ethanol-supplemented media evolve higher activity of ALDH and ADH (Fry et al. 2004). Therefore, ethanol could modify the process of energy allocation, which could result in the evolutionary response of D. melanogaster (Castaneda & Nespolo 2013). Moreover, many animals, including Drosophila species and mammalian species, have evolved resistance to ethanol toxicity (Mercot et al. 1994; Wiens et al. 2008), but little is known about the physiological basis of this resistance.

Mercot et al. (1994) reported that the ecological niches of Drosophila species are closely associated with their alcohol tolerance and ADH activity. Unlike D. melanogaster, D. suzukii feeds on healthy ripening fruit with little alcohol, therefore, research on the difference in alcohol resistance between D. melanogaster and D. suzukii to alcohol or its metabolite products may elucidate factors contributing to occupation of different niches. The goals of this study were to determine: (1) if there are differences in the content of alcohol and acetaldehyde in 2 natural Drosophila species habitats, (2) whether there are differences in the effect of ethanol on mortality of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii, and (3) if there are differences in ADH and ALDH activity between D. melanogaster and D. suzukii exposed to ethanol.

Materials and Methods


Drosophila melanogaster and D. suzukii adults were collected in Jun 2015 in a grape orchard in Jinan (1.2833[degrees]E, 36.6600[degrees]N), Shandong Province, China. They were reared on grapes (Red Globe grape) and on an artificial diet for 5 to 6 consecutive generations at 25 [+ or -] 0.5 [degrees]C, 70 [+ or -] 0.5% relative humidity (RH), and a photoperiod of 16:8 h (L:D) in a climate-controlled growth chamber. The artificial diet was composed of mashed banana and apple, corn flour, sucrose, yeast extract, sorbitol, and agar as described in Zhai et al. (2014).


Grapes (Red Globe grape) were collected from a commercial vineyard in Jinan (1.2833[degrees]E, 36.6600[degrees]N), using the 5-point sampling method with 30 grapes in each point. The midpoint of the diagonal was selected randomly as the center of the sampling point along the diagonal, and the 4 points that were 5 m equidistant from the center were chosen as the other sample points. The samples were collected in May 2015 when grapes were first ripening, and in Jun 2015 when most grapes were rotten. The grapes that were collected were then individually placed into 1 tissue-culture bottle (5.5 cm diam x 9 cm ht) under the laboratory conditions described above. After 5 days, the numbers of 3rd instar larvae or pupae in fruit were recorded, which served as a proxy measurement of the reproductive success of adults in the vineyard. The proportion of grapes containing larvae for each sample point was calculated and considered as the crop damage rate.


Fifteen male-female pairs of D. melanogaster and 15 male-female pairs of D. suzukii adults, 3 days post-eclosion, were placed into 1 tissue-culture bottle (5.5 cm diam x 9 cm ht) containing 1 fresh grape, with 5 replicate bottles for each species. Drosophila melanogaster and D. suzukii cannot pierce grape fruits with their mouthparts to feed on juice; flies were fed honey-water (60%) in a plastic disc (1 cm diam) placed in each bottle. Moreover, to keep flies from drowning in the honey solution, a filter paper was placed in the bottom of each bottle. Fresh grapes without flies were designed as the control. After 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 d, the ethanol and acetaldehyde content of the grapes were determined using K-ETOH Ethanol and K-ACHYD Acetaldehyde Assay Kits following the manufacturer's instructions (Megazyme, Bray, Ireland).


Fifty female D. melanogaster flies at 3 d post-eclosion, and 50 larvae that were 2 d post-hatching, respectively, were placed into artificial diet with different concentration of ethanol in 5 tissue-culture bottle (5.5 cm diam x 9 cm ht) replicates. The percentages of ethanol by weight in the artificial diet were 0, 2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, and 15%. The dead adults were recorded after 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 24 h. The individuals were counted after eclosion, as surviving larvae were needed in larvae experiments.

The D. melanogaster and D. suzukii adults and larvae surviving exposure to ethanol after 24 h were collected and assayed for the activity of ADH and ALDH using Alcohol Dehydrogenase Activity Assay and Aldehyde Dehydrogenase Activity Colorimetric Assay Kits (Sigma-Aldrich, Munich, Germany). ADH and ALDH activity was calculated using alpha-naphthol standard curve and expressed as U. 1U is the amount of enzyme required to synthesize 1 micromole alpha-naphthol per minute.


The ethanol and acetaldehyde content in grapes with different degrees of rotting, the mortality and ADH and ALDH activity levels of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii at different concentrations of ethanol, were analyzed using a 1-way ANOVA (a = 0.05) and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparisons using the SPSS 17.0 statistical analysis package (IBM, Two-way ANOVA (a = 0.05) was used to test the significance of the ethanol and acetaldehyde content with species and time as factors, the significance of mortality of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii adults with ethanol concentration and time as factors, and the significance of mortality of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii larvae with species and ethanol concentration as factors. Moreover, the L[C.sub.50] (lethal concentration for 50% of flies) of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii exposed to ethanol at different concentrations was estimated through probit regression analysis with SPSS 17.0.



Table 1 indicates the egg-laying estimate of D. melanogasterand D. suzukii in the field, and the damage rate of grapes for Jun 2015 and Aug 2015. The rate of damage caused by D. melanogaster and D. suzukii in fresh grape was lower than that observed in rotten grape. In Jun, most grapes were ripe and D. suzukii laid eggs in less than 10% grapes. However, all rotten grapes remaining in the orchard until Aug contained Drosophila eggs or larvae. About 68.3% of eggs were D. melanogaster; 9.9% and 23.3% were D. suzukii and other Drosophila species, respectively.


The time, species, as well as the interaction of species and time showed significantly impact on ethanol and acetaldehyde content in grapes (Table 2). Ethanol content in grapes increased in the presence of D. melanogaster and decreased in the presence of D. suzukii compared to grapes that were placed in a container without flies (Fig. 1A). With increasing time for the fruit to decay, the ethanol content increased gradually in grapes infested by D. melanogaster, which reached 4.0 [+ or -] 0.1 g per L on the 12th d. The highest content of ethanol in the control was 0.891 [+ or -] 0.043 g per L on the 12th d, while the ethanol content in grapes infested by D. suzukii increased for the first 6 d (0.5 [+ or -] 0.0 g per L) and then decreased in the following 6 d. Figure 1B shows the acetaldehyde content in the grapes of the 3 treatments. The acetaldehyde content in grapes infested by D. melanogaster and the control showed similar patterns as ethanol content throughout different time points. Interestingly, the acetaldehyde in grapes infested by D. suzukii was higher than grapes infested by D. melanogaster or the control before the 10th d, but was lower on the 12th d.


Drosophila melanogaster and D. suzukii adult mortality was significantly affected by the concentration of ethanol, exposure time, and the interaction of ethanol concentration and exposure time (Table 3). Drosophila melanogaster mortality was not affected when exposed to ethanol with the concentrations of 2.5 and 5% (Fig. 2A). However, the mortality of D. suzukii increased when the ethanol concentration exceeded 3% (Fig. 2B). For both D. melanogaster and D. suzukii, mortality increased gradually with increasing ethanol concentration and exposure time (Fig. 2; Table 3). With increasing exposure time, the L[C.sub.50] of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii adults decreased steadily; however, the L[C.sub.50] of D. melanogaster adults was consistently higher than that of D. suzukii adults at the same concentration. The L[C.sub.50] was 3.9% for D. suzukii adults and 10.8% for D. melanogaster adults at 1.5 h. The L[C.sub.50] of D. melanogaster adults was around 8.0% after being exposed to ethanol for 6 h, which was significantly higher than that of D. suzukii, which was around 2.7%.

The mortality rate of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii larvae also increased with increasing ethanol concentration (Fig. 3). Larvae were significantly affected by the concentration of ethanol, time, and the interaction of ethanol concentration and time (Table 3). For D. melanogaster and D. suzukii, the mortalities of larvae were all higher than those of adults, and all D. suzukii larvae died when the media contained 5% ethanol or above.


We measured the ADH and ALDH activity levels in D. melanogaster and D. suzukii flies that were exposed to ethanol for 24 h. The mortality of D. melanogaster adults and larvae reached 100% when they were exposed to 10% ethanol for 24 h (Fig. 2A); therefore, individuals exposed to 2.5, 5, and 7.5% ethanol were selected for ADH and ALDH activity assays. High mortality occurred also in D. suzukii in response to concentrations above 5% ethanol; therefore, individuals were exposed to 2.5% ethanol in enzyme activity assays (Fig. 2B).

The ADH and ALDH activity of D. melanogaster adults was markedly higher than the larvae (Fig. 4A, B; ADH: F = 29.0, df = 7, P < 0.001; ALDH: F = 14.1, df = 7, P < 0.001). Exposure to 5% ethanol significantly increased ADH activity in D. melanogaster adults by 23.21%. However, exposure to 7.5% ethanol resulted in a 30.79% decrease in activity levels compared to unexposed adult controls (21.5 [+ or -] 1.6 U per mg) (Fig. 4A). Drosophila melanogaster adults exposed to 7.5% ethanol showed 20.54% decrease in ALDH activity compared to adult controls (1.7 [+ or -] 0.1 U per mg) (Fig. 4B) . In contrast, ethanol positively affected ADH activity of D. melanogaster larvae, resulting in more than 50% increase in activity level compared to larval controls (8.4 [+ or -] 1.4 U per mg) (Fig. 4A). ALDH activity of D. melanogaster larvae exposed to ethanol with the concentration of 2.5, 5, and 7.5% also showed significant increases in ALDH activity levels compared to the control (1.2 [+ or -] 0.0 U per mg) (Fig. 4B).

The activity level of ADH and ALDH in D. suzukii adults and larvae exposed to ethanol (Fig. 4C, D) were consistently lower than that of D. melanogaster adults and larvae (Fig. 4A, B). Meanwhile, the adults had higher ADH and ALDH activity levels than those of larvae (ADH: F = 114.3, df = 3, P < 0.001; ALDH: F = 5.2, df = 3, P = 0.027). Exposure to 2.5% ethanol increased ADH activity of D. suzukii adults and larvae by 14.23 and 38.70%, respectively, compared to controls (adult: 13.7 [+ or -] 0.5 U per mg; larvae: 6.7 [+ or -] 0.3 U per mg) (Fig. 4C). There were no significant differences in ALDH activity between the control and D. suzukii adults or larvae exposed to 2.5% ethanol.


Drosophila melanogaster prefers to lay eggs and feed on rotten fruit, which often accumulates higher levels of ethanol as the fruit continues to decay. David and Vanherrewege (1983) reported that D. melanogaster fruit fly larvae consume yeasts growing on rotting fruit and have evolved resistance to products of fermentation, such as ethanol and acetaldehyde. Drosophila melanogaster can tolerate as much as 6 to 7% ethanol in its breeding sites (Gibson et al. 1981). In this study, D. suzukii can tolerate as much as 2.0 to 2.5% ethanol in its breeding sites. Yeasts growing on overripe fruit provide nutrients for adults and larvae of saprophagous Drosophila species (Mercot et al. 1994; Lebreton et al. 2014). The abundance of yeast species was lower in uninfested fruit juice samples compared to infested fruit juice samples (Hamby et al. 2012). Therefore, the increase of ethanol content in D. melanogaster infested grapes may be due to the presence of beneficial microorganisms in rotting fruits. In contrast, we found that ethanol content increased in decaying grapes infested by D. suzukii until 6 d after infestation, and ethanol content decreased afterwards. By the 12th d of culture, the ethanol content of D. suzukii-infested grapes was significantly lower than grapes infested by D. melanogaster. This may be due to the difference in microorganisms that thrive in grapes infested by D. suzukii and D. melanogaster; however, further investigation is needed to understand this process.

Moreover, previous studies have shown that D. suzukii is attracted by traps containing bait with relatively high alcohol content, such as wine (Lee et al. 2011; Cini et al. 2012; Cha et al. 2013). We found that D. melanogaster had significantly higher alcohol tolerance compared to that of D. suzukii (Fig. 2). Drosophila melanogaster adults are more tolerant to environmental alcohol compared to its sister species, D. simulans, in both laboratory and field conditions (McKenzie & Parsons, 1972). In wild-type D. melanogaster, more than 90% of ethanol is metabolized via the ADH system, and ADH and ALDH activities regulated by dietary ethanol, suggesting that ADH activity reflects the capacity for ethanol tolerance (Geer et al. 1985). We found that D. melanogaster adults and larvae had higher ADH activity than D. suzukii when exposed to ethanol, which is consistent with previous findings that D. melanogaster is more tolerant to alcohol than D. suzukii (Sampson et al. 2016). Therefore, the lower resistance to ethanol may underlie the preference of D. suzukiito oviposit on healthy ripening fruit with a lower concentration of ethanol (Sampson et al. 2016).

Acetaldehyde is converted into acetic acid by ALDH (Deitrich 2004). Grapes infested by D. suzukii had higher acetaldehyde levels compared to grapes infested by D. melanogaster, which may be due to the lower ALDH activity levels of D. suzukii adults and larvae when exposed to ethanol. The higher levels of acetaldehyde in grapes infested by D. melanogaster were likely detoxified by ALDH, which is one of the characteristics of higher ethanol tolerance. Heinstra et al. (1982) reported that ADH in Drosophila not only catalyzes the oxidation of ethanol to acetaldehyde, but additionally catalyzes the conversion of this highly toxic product into acetate. In this study, the ethanol content in grapes infested by 2 Drosophila species was more than 10-fold higher than the acetaldehyde content (Fig. 1), which was in accordance with the pharmacokinetic models for ethanol metabolism. The reaction of converting acetaldehyde back into ethanol is essential and keeps acetaldehyde levels approximately 10-fold lower than if the reaction were irreversible (Umulis et al. 2005). It is far more likely that the main metabolic course of alcohol is accomplished by ADH for Drosophila when acetaldehyde content is limited. However, the regulation mechanism of enzyme activity by ethanol and acetaldehyde content needs further study.

Aside from differences in protein coding sequences, transcriptional regulation and post-translational modifications also can regulate ADH and ALDH activity (Dannenberg et al. 2005). For instance, Sha et al. (2014) reported that the neuropeptide corazonin (Crz) and its receptor (CrzR), involved in the neuroendocrine system, are important physiological regulators of ethanol metabolism in Drosophila, and the CrzR-associated signaling pathway is critical for ethanol detoxification. Moreover, acetyl CoA, the metabolic product of alcohol, can participate in carbohydrate and fat metabolism (Deitrich 2004). Drosophila can increase response to oxidative stress through abnormal fat metabolism which results in reduced production of insulin-like peptides (dILPs) and their receptor (Logan-Garbisch et al. 2014). Insulin signaling responds indirectly to ethanol through the phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) and phosphoinositide-dependent kinase (Pdk) pathways. Ethanol also increases immune response by inhibiting lipid peroxidation (LPO), and promoting the activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and Catalase (CAT) (Jahromi et al. 2015). However, it is unclear whether D. suzukii has similar genetic regulation mechanism of metabolic enzymes and hydrolysis products of alcohol. This study shows that D. melanogaster adults are more tolerant of alcohol than D. suzukii. Although the evolutionary adaptation to alcohol for D. melanogaster is not fully understood, the availability of different niches for laying eggs and feeding may be contributing factors for evolution of higher tolerance to alcohol. Identifying differences between the genetic regulation mechanisms of D. melanogaster and D. suzukii after exposure to ethanol could further explain the mechanisms underlying niche differences between these species.


This work was financially supported through a grant from the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China (ZR-2014CQ014) and Agricultural science and technology innovation projects (CXGC2016D01) and (CXGC2016B11). The authors wish to thank Jianlong Bi for the manuscript language revision.

References Cited

Azanchia R, Kauna KR, Heberlein. 2013. Competing dopamine neurons drive oviposition choice for ethanol in Drosophila. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 110: 21153-21158.

Castaneda LE, Nespolo RF. 2013. Phenotypic and genetic effects of contrasting ethanol environments on physiological and developmental traits in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 8: e58920.

Cha DH, Hesler SP, Cowles RS, Vogt H, Loeb GM, Landolt PJ. 2013. Comparison of a synthetic chemical lure and standard fermented baits for trapping Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Environmental Entomology 42: 1052-1060.

Cini A, Ioriattic C, Anfora G. 2012. A review of the invasion of Drosophila suzukii in Europe and a draft research agenda for integrated pest management. Bulletin of Insectology 65: 149-160.

Dannenberg LO, Chen HJ, Edenberg HJ. 2005. GATA-2 and HNF-3beta regulate the human alcohol dehydrogenase 1A (ADH1A) gene. DNA and Cell Biology 24: 543-552.

David JR, Vanherrewege J. 1983. Adaptation to alcoholic fermentation in Drosophila species: Relationship between alcohol tolerance and larval habitat. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 74: 283-288.

Deitrich RA. 2004. Acetaldehyde: deja vu du jour. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 65: 557-572.

Devineni AV, Heberlein U. 2013. The evolution of Drosophila melanogaster as a model for alcohol research. Annual Review of Neuroscience 36: 121-138.

Fry JD, Saweikis M. 2006. Aldehyde dehydrogenase is essential for both adult and larval ethanol resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics Resource 57: 87-92.

Fry JD. 2014. Mechanisms of naturally evolved ethanol resistance in Drosophila melanogaster. Journal of Experimental Biology 217: 3996-4003.

Fry JD, Bahnck CM, Mikucki M, Phadnis N, Slattery WC. 2004. Dietary ethanol mediates selection on aldehyde dehydrogenase activity in Drosophila melanogaster. Integrative Comparative Biology 44: 275-283.

Geer BW, Langevin ML, McKechnie SW. 1985. Dietary ethanol and lipid synthesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Biochemical Genetics 23: 607-622.

Gibson JB, May TW, Wilks AV. 1981. Genetic variation at the alcohol dehydrogenase locus in Drosophila melanogaster in relation to environmental variation: Ethanol levels in breeding sites and allozyme frequencies. Oecologia 51: 191-198.

Hamby KA, Hernandez A, Boundy-Mills K, Zalom FG. 2012. Associations of yeasts with spotted-wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii; Diptera: Drosophilidae) in cherries and raspberries. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78: 4869-4873.

Harris RA, Trudell JR, Mihic SJ. 2008. Ethanol's molecular targets. Science Signaling 1: re7.

Heinstra PWH, Eisses KT, Schoonen WGE, Thorig GEW. 1982. A dual function of alcohol dehydrogenase in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetica 60: 129-137.

Jahromi SR, Haddadi M, Shivanandappa T, Ramesh SR. 2015. Modulatory effect of Decalepis hamiltonii on ethanol-induced toxicity in transgenic Drosophila model of Parkinson's disease. Neurochemistry International 80: 1-6.

Kenis M, Tonina L, Eschen R, van der Sluis B, Sancassani M, Mori N, Haye T, Helsen H. 2016. Non-crop plants used as hosts by Drosophila suzukii in Europe. Journal of Pest Science 89: 735-748.

Kliethermes CL. 2015. Conservation of the ethanol-induced locomotor stimulant response among arthropods. Brain Behavior Evolution 85: 37-46.

Lebreton S, Witzgall P, Olsson M, Becher PG. 2014. Dietary glucose regulates yeast consumption in adult Drosophila males. Frontiers in Physiology doi: 10.3389/fphys.2014.00504.

Lee JC, Bruck DJ, Curry H. 2011. The susceptibility of small fruits and cherries to the spotted-wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii. Pest Management Science 67: 1358-1367.

Lee JC, Dreves AJ, Cave AM, Kawai S, Isaacs R, Miller JC, Van Timmeren S, Bruck DJ. 2015. Infestation of wild and ornamental noncrop fruits by Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 108: 117-129.

Logan-Garbisch T, Bortolazzo A, Luu P, Ford A, Do D, Khodabakhshi P, French RL. 2014. Developmental ethanol exposure leads to dysregulation of lipid metabolism and oxidative stress in Drosophila. G3 (Bethesda) 5: 49-59.

McKechnie SW, Morgan P. 1982. Alcohol dehydrogenase polymorphism of Drosophila melanogaster: Aspects of alcohol and temperature variation in the larval environment. Australian Journal of Biological Science 35: 85-93.

McKenzie JA, Parsons PA. 1972. Alcohol tolerance: an ecological parameter in the relative success of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans. Oecologia 10: 373-388.

Mercot H, Defaye D, Capy P, Pla E, David JR. 1994. Alcohol tolerance, ADH activity, and ecological niche of Drosophila species. Evolution 48: 746-757.

Milan NF, Kacsoh BZ, Schlenke TA. 2012. Alcohol consumption as self-medication against blood-borne parasites in the fruit fly. Current Biology 22: 488-493.

Mitsui H, Takahashi HK, Kimura MT. 2006. Spatial distributions and clutch sizes of Drosophila species ovipositing on cherry fruits of different stages. Population Ecology 48: 233-237.

Sampson BJ, Stafne ET, Marshall-Shaw DA, Stringer SJ, Mallette T, Werle CT, Larson D. 2016. Environmental ethanol as a reproductive constraint on spotted wing drosophila and implications for control in Rubus and other fruits. Acta Horticulture 1133: 411-418.

Sasaki M, Sato R. 1995. Bionomics of the cherry drosophila, Drosophila suzukii Matsumura (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Fukushima prefecture (Japan). Annual Reports of the Society of Plant Protection of North Japan 46: 164-172.

Sha K, Choi SH, Im J, Lee GG, Loeffler F, Park JH. 2014. Regulation of ethanol-related behavior and ethanol metabolism by the Corazonin neurons and Corazonin receptor in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 9: e87062.

Umulis DM, Gurmen NM, Singh P, Fogler HS. 2005. A physiologically based model for ethanol and acetaldehyde metabolism in human beings. Alcohol 35: 3-12.

Wiens F, Zitzmann A, Lachance MA, Yegles M, Pragst F, Wurst FM, von Holst D, Guan SL, Spanagel R. 2008. Chronic intake of fermented floral nectar by wild treeshrews. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) 105: 10426-10431.

Zhai YF, Yu Y, Lin QC, Zhou XH, Li LL, Zhuang QY, Zhang AS, Men XY. 2014. An artificial diet for Drosophila suzukii. State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China. 201410162636.6.

Huan-Huan Gao (1), Yi-Fan Zhai (2), Hao Chen (2), Yong-Mei Wang (1), Qian Liu (2), Qing-Ling Hu (3), Feng-Shan Ren (1*), and Yi Yu (2*)

(1) Shandong Academy of Grape, Jinan, 250100, China; E-mails: (H. H. G.); (Y. M. W.); (F. S. R.)

(2) Institute of Plant Protection, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan, 250100, China; E-mails: (Y. F. Z.); (H. C.); (Q L.); (Y. Y.)

(3) College of Chemistry and Environment, Weinan Normal University, Weinan, 714000, China; E-mails: (Q L. H.)

Corresponding authors; E-mails: (F. S. R.); (Y. Y.)

Caption: Fig. 1. Ethanol (A) and acetaldehyde (B) contents of grapes infested by Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila suzukii.

Caption: Fig. 2. Mortality of Drosophila melanogaster (A) and Drosophila suzukii (B) adults exposed to varying concentrations of ethanol.

Caption: Fig. 3. Mortality of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila suzukii larvae exposed to varying concentrations of ethanol.

Caption: Fig. 4. ADH and ALDH activity levels of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila suzukii exposed to ethanol. (A) ADH activity in Drosophila melanogaster; (B) ALDH activity in Drosophila melanogaster; (C) ADH activity in Drosophila suzukii; (D) ALDH activity in Drosophila suzukii. Different letters in each figure (A, B, C, D) indicate a significant difference between adults and larvae (One-way ANOVA: [alpha] = 0.05).
Table 1. Reproductive success of Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila
suzukii in the field, and corresponding damage on host grapes.

          Reproductive success (Number of 3rd instar larvae and pupae
          per sample point)
Time      D. melanogaster      D. suzukii          Other flies

Jun-2015    0                  20.4 [+ or -] 4.5   0
Aug-2015  114.3 [+ or -] 19.3  14.8 [+ or -] 5.7   38.3 [+ or -] 8.4

          Reproductive success
          (Number of 3rd instar
          larvae and pupae per
          sample point)
Time      Damage
          rate (%)

Jun-2015    9.5 [+ or -] 2.1
Aug-2015  100%

Table 2. Probit regression analyses of the effect of ethanol on adults
of Drosophila suzukii and Drosophila melanogaster.

Insect           Time  Regression equation           L[C.sub.50] (%)
D. suzukii        1.5  Probit(P) = 59.456x - 2.326    3.9
                  3    Probit(P) = 98.163x - 2.980    3.0
                  6    Probit(P) = 114.945x - 3.160   2.7
                 12    Probit(P) = 121.083x - 3.324   2.7
                 24    Probit(P) = 123.622x - 3.174   2.6
D. melanogaster   1.5  Probit(P) = 37.284x - 4.023   10.8
                  3    Probit(P) = 36.553x - 3.500    9.6
                  6    Probit(P) = 55.290x - 4.496    8.1
                 12    Probit(P) = 58.007x - 4.577    7.9
                 24    Probit(P) = 29.602x - 2.796    9.4

Insect           Confidence      [chi square]  P        df
                 interval (95%)
D. suzukii       0.029 - 0.046     2015.4      < 0.001  32
                 0.027 - 0.034      620.3      < 0.001  32
                 0.023 - 0.031      848.2      < 0.001  32
                 0.021 - 0.031     1171.9      < 0.001  32
                 0.020 - 0.029      907.7      < 0.001  32
D. melanogaster  0.093 - 0.125     1597.3      < 0.001  30
                 0.088 - 0.104      466.4      < 0.001  30
                 0.071 - 0.097     6321.0      < 0.001  30
                 0.067 - 0.094   101942.7      < 0.001  30
                 0.078 - 0.149      256.3      < 0.001  30

Table 3. Results of two-way ANOVA analysis of alcohol content of
grapes, and the effects of alcohol concentration on adult or larval

                                   Type III Sum      Mean
Parameters       Source            of Squares    df  Square    F

Ethanol          Corrected Model      115.9      20      5.8   146.1
                 Time                  43.2       6      7.28  181.7
                 Species of flies      42.0       2     21.1   530.1
                 Time * Species        30.6      12      2.6    64.3
                 of flies
Acetaldehyde     Corrected Model        0.0      20      0.0    64.4
                 Time                   0.0       6      0.0   108.6
                 Species of flies       0.0       2      0.0     8.2
                 Time * Species         0.0      12      0.0    51.7
                 of flies
Mortality of     Corrected Model   242103.3      27   8966. 8  165.6
D. suzukii
adults (%)
                 Concentration     230138.2       6  38356.4   708.3
                 Time                8083.4       4   2020.9    37.3
                 Concentration       8080.9      17    475.3     8.8
                 * Time
Mortality of     Corrected Model   226866.6      30   7562.2   151.8
D. melanogaster
adults (%)
                 Concentration     205574.0       6  34262.3   687.9
                 Time                5499.6       4   1374.9    27.6
                 Concentration                   20    311.9     6.
                 * Time
Mortality of     Corrected Model        3.0       9      0.3   130.1
larvae (%)
                 Species of flies       0.0       1      0.0     1.2
                 Concentration          3.0       4      0.8   289.6
                 Species of flies       0.0       4      0.0     2.8
                 * Concentration

                          R Squared
Parameters       P        (%)

Ethanol          < 0.001  98.6
                 < 0.001
                 < 0.001
                 < 0.001
Acetaldehyde     < 0.001  96.8
                 < 0.001
                 < 0.001
Mortality of     < 0.001  97.7
D. suzukii
adults (%)
                 < 0.001
                 < 0.001
                 < 0.001
Mortality of     < 0.001  97.6
D. melanogaster
adults (%)
                 < 0.001
                 < 0.001
                 < 0.001
Mortality of     < 0.001  96.7
larvae (%)
                 < 0.001

Please Note: Illustration(s) are not available due to copyright restrictions.
COPYRIGHT 2018 Florida Entomological Society
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gao, Huan-Huan; Zhai, Yi-Fan; Chen, Hao; Wang, Yong-Mei; Liu, Qian; Hu, Qing-Ling; Ren, Feng-Shan; Y
Publication:Florida Entomologist
Article Type:Report
Date:Sep 1, 2018
Previous Article:Phenotypic structure of Colombian populations of Anastrepha fraterculus complex (Diptera: Tephritidae).
Next Article:Insights into the microbes and nematodes hosted by pupae of the arundo leaf miner, Lasioptera donacis (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae).

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |