title: Eradication of tephritid fruit fly pest populations: outcomes and prospects.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The number of insect eradication programmes is rising in response to globalisation. A database of arthropod and plant pathogen eradications covers 1050 incursion responses, with 928 eradication programmes on 299 pest and disease taxa in 104 countries (global eradication database b3.net.nz/gerda).
  
  
  METHODS
  A subset of the database was assembled with 211 eradication or response programmes against 17 species of fruit flies (Tephritidae) in 31 countries, in order to investigate factors affecting the outcome.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The failure rate for fruit fly eradication programmes was about 7%, with 0% for Ceratitis capitata (n = 85 programmes) and 0% for two Anastrepha species (n = 12 programmes), but 12% for 13 Bactrocera species (n = 108 programmes). A number of intended eradication programmes against long-established populations were not initiated because of cost and other considerations, or evolved during the planning phase into suppression programmes. Cost was dependent on area, ranged from $US 0.1 million to $US 240 million and averaged about $US 12 million (normalised to $US in 2012). In addition to the routine use of surveillance networks, quarantine and fruit destruction, the key tactics used in eradication programmes were male annihilation, protein bait sprays (which can attract both sexes), fruit destruction and the sterile insect technique.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Eradication success generally required the combination of several tactics applied on an area-wide basis. Because the likelihood of eradication declines with an increase in the area infested, it pays to invest in effective surveillance networks that allow early detection and delimitation while invading populations are small, thereby greatly favouring eradication success.
authors.affiliation: The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand.|Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia.|Better Border Biosecurity, New Zealand.
authors.forename: David Maxwell
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Suckling
authors.affiliation: Better Border Biosecurity, New Zealand.|AgResearch Limited, Hamilton, New Zealand.
authors.forename: John M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Kean
authors.affiliation: The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand.|Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia.|Better Border Biosecurity, New Zealand.|School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
authors.forename: Lloyd D
authors.initials: LD
authors.lastname: Stringer
authors.affiliation: Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Seibersdorf Laboratories, Seibersdorf, Austria.
authors.forename: Carlos
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Cáceres-Barrios
authors.affiliation: Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria.
authors.forename: Jorge
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hendrichs
authors.affiliation: Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria.
authors.forename: Jesus
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Reyes-Flores
authors.affiliation: NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, New South Wales, Australia.
authors.forename: Bernard C
authors.initials: BC
authors.lastname: Dominiak
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D033622:Ceratitis capitata; D016208:Databases, Factual; D007300:Insect Control / Q000191:economics / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D013045:Species Specificity; D033621:Tephritidae
keywords: Tephritidae; bait; incursions; male annihilation; quarantine; sterile insect technique; surveillance; trap