Comparison of Pheromone-Mediated Mating Disruption and Conventional Insecticides for Management of Tufted Apple Bud Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

Abstract

Large-plot studies were used to compare pheromone-mediated mating disruption and conventional insecticide applications for management of tufted apple bud moth, Platynota idaeusalis (Walker), in North Carolina in 1993 and 1994. Pheromone trap catches were reduced in mating disruption blocks, and traps placed in the lower stratum of the canopy had a higher level of trap capture reduction compared with traps placed in the upper stratum. First-generation tufted apple bud moth exposure to either pheromones for mating disruption or insecticides affected second generation pheromone trap catches in the lower and upper canopy. More second generation male moths were caught in pheromone traps placed in the upper compared with the lower canopy in blocks treated with pheromones for mating disruption during the first generation, whereas the opposite was true in blocks treated with insecticides during the first generation. Despite reduced trap catches in pheromone-treated blocks, egg mass densities were not reduced in these blocks compared with insecticide-treated blocks. Furthermore, fruit damage was not significantly different between mating disruption blocks and conventionally treated blocks in orchards with relatively low populations of tufted apple bud moth, but damage was greater in mating disruption blocks in orchards with higher moth densities.

Efficacy of communication disruption of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) with low pheromone formulation

“…In 2011, the inhibition of successful orientation was almost complete even at the peak of the fl ight period of the moth. This observation is consistent with other studies on mating disruption, where the technique is most eff ective when applied in the correct time (Moffi tt and Westigard, 1984;Borchert and Walgenbach, 2000;Hegazi et al, 2007;Witzgall et al, 2010).…”

Biorational insecticides in pest management

“…120) Monitoring success of the experiments is often difficult and sometimes inconsistent, since possible reduction in trap catches in pheromone-treated blocks may not be corresponded with egg mass densities and damage produced by larvae of the next generation. [125][126][127][128] There has been considerable debate about the mechanisms underlying mating disruption, 129,130) although there is general agreement now that more than one mechanism may be operational at the same time and that they may vary between species. 131) Two possible mechanisms are recognized in the literature for mating disruption: competitive (competitive attractionϭfalse-plume-following) and non-competitive (camouflage, desensitization, and sensory imbalance).…”

Toxicity and Risk of Biopesticides to Insect Pollinators in Urban and Agricultural Landscapes

“…Other factors include the density of the pest population. For example, mating disruption is ineffective in orchards heavily infested with Platynota idaeusalis [Lepidoptera: Totricidae] (tufted apple bud moth) [63] and forests with a high density of spongy moths [64]. The mating disruption approach can further be changed into a push-pull tactic by incorporating both attractants and repellents [65].…”