Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T00:20:25.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing action thresholds for codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) with pear ester- and codlemone-baited traps in apple orchards treated with sex pheromone mating disruption

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

A. L. Knight  and
D.M. Light
A. L. Knight*
Affiliation:
Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory, USDA–ARS, 5230 Konnowac Pass Road, Wapato, Washington 98951, United States of America
D.M. Light
Affiliation:
Western Regional Research Center, USDA–ARS, 800 Buchanan Street, Albany, California 94710, United States of America
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: aknight@yarl.ars.usda.gov).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Traps baited with either ethyl (E,Z)-2,4-decadienoate (pear ester) or (E,E)- 8,10- dodecadien-1-ol (codlemone) (Pherocon® CM-DA™ and Megalure CM™ lures, respectively) were used to develop action thresholds for codling moth (Cydia pomonella (L.)) in apple (Malus domestica Borkh.; Rosaceae) orchards treated with sex pheromones for control of this pest. Studies were conducted in 102 orchards treated with 500–1000 ISOMATE®-C PLUS dispensers per hectare during 2000–2002. Pairs of traps were placed within two 1.0-ha plots within each orchard. Fruit injury was assessed at mid-season and prior to harvest in each plot. The numbers of female and total moths caught in pear ester-baited traps and male moths caught in codlemone-baited traps were used to develop action thresholds. Thresholds were based on the minimum cumulative number of moths per trap in ≥95% of traps in unsprayed plots with no fruit injury. Specific thresholds were established for the first insecticide spray targeting the start of egg hatch and for the first and second moth flights. The proportion of plots with mid-season fruit injury that had cumulative moth catches below the action threshold at first spray and at second moth flight was determined using the established action threshold and thresholds reduced incrementally to ≥1 moth per trap. Moth catches below the threshold at first spray were less common in plots with high levels of fruit injury (>0.3%) than in plots with low levels of fruit injury and more common with codlemone-baited traps than with pear ester-baited traps. An action threshold of ≥1 moth in a pear ester-baited trap at first spray eliminated the error in predicting fruit injury in plots at mid-season. Conversely, a high proportion of traps baited with either lure failed to predict low levels of fruit injury at harvest in unsprayed plots regardless of the cumulative moth threshold used during the second moth flight.

Résumé

Des pièges appâtés à l'éthyl (E,Z)-2,4-décadiénoate (ester de poire; PheroconMD CM-DAMC) ou au (E,E)-8,10-dodécadiènol (codlemone; Megalure CMMC) ont servi à déterminer des seuils d'action pour la carpocapse de la pomme, Cydia pomonella (L.), dans des pommeraies à Malus domestica Borkh. (Rosaceae) traitées aux phéromones sexuelles pour la lutte contre ce ravageur. Les études ont été menées dans 102 vergers traités avec 500–1000 distributeurs ISOMATEMD-C PLUS par hectare en 2000–2002. Nous avons placé des paires de pièges dans deux parcelles de 1,0 ha dans chaque verger. Nous avons évalué le dommage aux fruits à la mi-saison et juste avant la récolte dans chaque parcelle. Les nombres de papillons femelles et de papillons totaux dans les pièges appâtés d'ester de poire et de papillons mâles dans les pièges appâtés de codlemone ont servi à déterminer les seuils d'action. Nous avons choisi les seuils d'après le nombre cumulatif minimum de papillons récoltés par piège dans > 95 % des pièges dans les parcelles non traitées sans dommage aux fruits. Nous avons développé des seuils pour le premier arrosage d'insecticide qui cible le début de l'éclosion des oeufs et pour le premier et le second envol des papillons. Dans les parcelles présentant des dommages aux fruits en mi-saison, nous avons déterminé la proportion de pièges ayant des récoltes cumulatives sous le seuil d'action lors du premier arrosage et lors du second envol à l'aide du seuil d'action établi et à l'aide de seuils réduits de façon graduelle à ≥ 1 papillon par piège. Les récoltes de papillons sous le seuil lors du premier arrosage sont moins communes dans les parcelles présentant un fort pourcentage (> 0,3 %) de dommages au fruits que dans celles qui en présentent peu et plus communes dans les pièges à la codelemone que dans les pièges à l'ester de poire. Un seuil d'action de ≥ 1 papillon dans un piège à l'ester de poire lors du premier arrosage élimine l'erreur dans la prédiction de dommages aux fruits en mi-saison. Inversement, une forte proportion des pièges munis de l'un ou l'autre appât ne réussissent pas à prédire les faibles intensités de dommages aux fruits au moment de la récolte dans les parcelles non traitées, quel que soit le seuil du nombre cumulé de papillons utilisé durant le second envol des papillons.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 137 , Issue 6 , December 2005 , pp. 739 - 747
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Analytical Software. 2003. Statistix8 [computer program]. Analytical Software, Tallahassee, Florida.Google Scholar
Beers, E.H., and Brunner, J.F. 1992. Implementation of the codling moth phenology model on apples in Washington State, USA. Acta Phytopathologica et Entomologica Hungarica, 27: 97–102.Google Scholar
Cardé, R.T., and Minks, A.K. 1995. Control of moth pests by mating disruption: successes and constraints. Annual Review of Entomology, 40: 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, W.J., and Massey, F. J. 1969. Introduction to statistical analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.Google Scholar
Gut, L.J., and Brunner, J.F. 1996. Implementing codling moth mating disruption in Washington pome fruit orchards. Tree Fruit Research Extension Center Information Series, No. 1. Washington State University, Wenatchee, Washington.Google Scholar
Hansen, J.D., and Schievelbein, S. 2002. Apple sampling in packing houses supports the systems approach for quarantine control of codling moth. Southwestern Entomologist, 27: 277–282.Google Scholar
Knight, A. 1995. The impact of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) mating disruption on apple pest management in Yakima Valley, Washington. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 92: 29–38.Google Scholar
Knight, A.L. 2002. A comparison of gray halo-butyl elastomer and red rubber septa to monitor codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in sex pheromonetreated orchards. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 99: 123–132.Google Scholar
Knight, A., and Christianson, B. 1999. Using traps and lures in pheromone-treated orchards. Good Fruit Grower, 50: 45–51.Google Scholar
Knight, A.L., and Croft, B.A. 1991. Modeling and prediction technology. In Tortricoid pests. Edited by van der Geest, L.P.S. and Evenhuis, H.H.. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 301–312.Google Scholar
Knight, A.L., and Light, D.M. 2005. Factors affecting the differential capture of male and female codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in traps baited with ethyl (E, Z)-2,4-decadienoate. Environmental Entomology, 34: 1161–1169.Google Scholar
Knight, A.L., Larson, D., and Christianson, B. 2002. Flight tunnel and field evaluations of sticky traps for monitoring codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in sex pheromone-treated orchards. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia, 99: 107–116.Google Scholar
Knight, A.L., VanBuskirk, P., Hilton, R., Zoller, B., and Light, D.M. 2005. Monitoring codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in four cultivars of pear. Acta Horticulturae, 671: 565–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, D.M., Knight, A.L., Henrick, C.A., Rajapaska, D., Lingren, B., Dickens, J.C., Reynolds, K.M., Buttery, R.G., Merrill, G., Roitman, J., and Campbell, B.C. 2001. A pearderived kairomone with pheromonal potency that attracts male and female codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.). Naturwissenschaften, 88: 333–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McNally, P.S., and Van Steenwyk, R. 1986. Relationship between pheromone trap catches and sunset temperatures during the spring flight to codling moth (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) infestations in walnuts. Journal of Economic Entomology, 79: 444–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, H. 1980. The importance of pheromone trap density and trap maintenance for the development of standardized monitoring procedures for the codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). The Canadian Entomologist, 112: 529–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, H., and Croft, B.A. 1974. A study of pheromone trap catches in relation to codling moth damage. The Canadian Entomologist, 106: 525–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, H., Croft, B.A., and Howitt, A. J. 1976. Forecasting codling moth phenology based on pheromone trap catches and physiological time models. The Canadian Entomologist, 108: 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, H., Howell, J.F., McNally, P.J., and Westigard, P.H. 1986. Codling moth management: use and standardization of pheromone trapping systems. Bulletin 1918, University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland, California.Google Scholar
Thwaite, W.G., Mooney, A.M., Eslick, M.A., and Nichol, H.L. 2004. Evaluating pear-derived kairomone lures for monitoring Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Granny Smith apples under mating disruption. General and Applied Entomology, 33: 56–60.Google Scholar
Vakenti, J.M., and Madsen, H.F. 1976. Codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): monitoring populations in apple orchards with sex pheromone traps. The Canadian Entomologist, 108: 433–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vickers, R.A., and Rothschild, G.H.L. 1991. Use of sex pheromones for control of codling moth. In Tortricoid pests. Edited by van der Geest, L.P.S. and Evenhuis, H.H.. Elsevier, Amsterdam. pp. 339–354.Google Scholar
Westigard, P.H., and Graves, K.L. 1976. Evaluation of pheromone baited traps in a pest management program on pears for codling moth control. The Canadian Entomologist, 108: 379–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witzgall, P., Bäckman, A.-C., Svensson, M., Koch, U.T., Rama, F., El-Sayed, A., Brauchi, J., Arn, H., Bengtsson, M., and Löfqvist, J. 1999. Behavioral observations of codling moth, Cydia pomonella, in orchards permeated with synthetic pheromone. Biocontrol, 44: 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar