Comparison of Topically Applied Rubidium Chloride and Fluorescent Dye Markers on Survival and Recovery of Field-Released Male Spruce Budworm Moths

Abstract

The influence of topical applications of fluorescent dyes or rubidium chloride (RbCl) solution, or both, on adult male spruce budworm longevity and attraction to and capture by pheromone-baited traps was investigated. Both marks persisted for at least 8 days in the field (duration of tests) and for at least 3 weeks in the laboratory. Recoveries of marked moths were similar to unmarked moths with respect to total recovery and timing and location (within the canopy) of recovery. The results validate the assumption implicit in previous mark–release–recapture studies on spruce budworm males that fluorescent dyes have no measurable effect on male trapping. A 0.41 M RbCl solution topically applied to laboratory-reared adult males is an efficient mass-marking technique for the spruce budworm.

Field Testing Rubidium Marking for Quantifying Intercrop Movement of Predatory Arthropods

“…Although it is frequently referred to as a trace element, rubidium is more abundant than previously thought, with concentrations up to 1.5% in lepidolite, the mineral from which it is commercially harvested (Lide 1998). Because of its similarity to potassium, rubidium is assimilated at low to moderate levels in biological systems without deleterious effects (Stimmann 1974, Graham and Wolfenbarger 1977, Knight et al 1989, Kipp and Lonergan 1992, Johnson and Reeves 1995. It is transmitted vertically between trophic levels (Graham et al 1978, Johnson and Reeves 1995, although its concentration decreases with each trophic ascension .…”

Inundative release of coccinellid beetles into eucalypt plantations for biological control of chrysomelid leaf beetles

“…No significant mortality or abnormal behaviour was noted over 3 days. Day-Glo fluorescent powders did not significantly influence laboratory survivorship or field recovery of spruce budworm (Kipp & Lonergan, 1992), survival or flight behaviour of a chrysomelid beetle (Naranjo, 1990), although they were shown to reduce the longevity, fecundity and egg hatch in the codling moth (Moffit & Albano, 1972).…”

Does marking with fluorescent powders affect the survival or development of larval Vanessa cardui?

“…Compared with behavioral studies, there have been far more investigations of the effect of dusting on survival. Most found no significant differences between the survival rates of dusted groups and undusted controls (Drosophila pseudoobscura Frolova & Astaurov: Crumpacker, 1974; Drosophila simulans Sturtevant: Moth & Barker, 1975;mountain pine beetles: McMullen et al, 1988; corn rootworm beetles: Naranjo, 1990;Oloumi-Sadeghi & Levine, 1990; boll weevils: Reinecke, 1990; spruce budworms: Kipp & Lonergan, 1992; phlebotomine flies: Pardo et al, 1996;trichogrammatid wasps: Garcia-Salazar & Landis, 1997;planthoppers: Cronin, 2003;diamondback moths: Mo et al, 2003;cicadellids: Coviella et al, 2006;psyllids: Nakata, 2008). Additionally, Oloumi-Sadeghi & Levine (1990) determined that dusting adult corn rootworm beetles had no effect on their rates of ovarian development.…”

“…Though field mark-recapture studies are sometimes used to infer the effects of dusting on movement, such studies typically conflate survival and movement differences, and are not reviewed here. In three studies of responses of dusted and undusted insects to pheromones (bark beetles: Cook & Hain, 1992; spruce budworm: Kipp & Lonergan, 1992;diamondback moths: Mo et al, 2003), dusting had no effect. Overall, negative effects of dusting on behavior were reported in only a small subset of the conditions tested.…”