PHEROMONE BAITED TRAP FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF RED PALM WEEVIL, Rhynchophorus ferrugineus F. (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) POPULATION IN COCONUT PLANTATIONS

Abstract

4-methyl-5-nonanol (ferrugineol), the major component of the aggregation pheromone of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus F. was evaluated as a lure for trapping of this pest in coconut plantations in Sri Lanka. Trap design, longevity of ferrugineol in field conditions, and the effect of trapping on damage incidence of R. ferrugineus were studied. N-pentanol, a known compound present in coconut stem volatiles was used in combination of ferrugineol in all tested traps. Trap designs tested were; an open plastic bucket, a funnel trap, and a modified metal trap. The open plastic bucket (5 L) baited with ferrugineol-pentanol, which was hung on coconut palm stem at 1.5 m, caught significantly more number of adult weevils than ferrugineolpentanol baited funnel and metal traps. An open plastic bucket trap was six times less expensive than the metal trap currently recommended by the Coconut Research Institute, Sri Lanka. Ferrugineol remained effective as a bait for 12 weeks under field conditions. High capture rates of adult R. ferrugineus were obtained in ferrugineol baited open bucket traps in plantations where the initial damage incidence was high. Monthly surveys of individual palms during pheromone trapping revealed that a sharp reduction of the number of coconut palms damaged by R. ferrugineus in 10-hectare experimental blocks. Continuous trapping of weevils with ferrugineol over a period of time significantly lowered the infestation of this pest.

Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

“…A specially designed pheromone trap was described by Maheswari & Rao (2000). Rajapakse et al . (1998) found that a 5‐L open plastic bucket baited with ferrugineol (4‐methyl‐5‐nonanol)‐pentanol, hung on coconut palm stems at 1.5 m caught significantly more adult weevils than ferrugineol‐pentanol baited funnel and metal traps.…”

Pheromone trapping system for Rhynchophorus ferrugineus in Saudi Arabia: Optimization of trap contents and placement

“…In coconut plantations in India, 1.0 m height was reported to yield highest trap catches (Faleiro, 2005). In India, Muralidharan et al (1999) hung the bucket traps on date palm trees at breast height, whereas in Sri Lanka, Rajapakse et al (1998), chose 1.5 m height above ground to hang traps on coconut trees for mass trapping studies on RPW. In Saudi Arabia, 1.5 m height was recommended for placing pheromone traps on date palm trunks .…”

“…During or after devouring the host, adults emerge and fly out in search of food resources and mates and cause re-infestations or newly infest the healthy palms (Nirula, 1956;Estaban-Durán et al, 1998). These outbound adults are targeted by semiochemical-based trapping methods which have been used as the mainstay of IPM programs in many countries to monitor and mass-trap the RPW populations in the field (Oehlschlager et al, 1993;Abraham et al, 1998;Rajapakse et al, 1998;Vidyasagar and Subaharan, 2000;Vidyasagar et al, 2000b;Oehlschlager et al, 2002;Soroker et al, 2005;Abbas et al, 2006;El-Sayed et al, 2006). A major advantage of RPW pheromone trapping is that it attracts nearly twice the number of females than males and thereby further helping to reduce progenies (Oehlschlager, 1998;Vidyasagar et al, 2000b;Abraham et al, 2001;Faleiro et al, 2002;Faleiro, 2005;Jayanth et al, 2007;Vacas et al, 2013Vacas et al, , 2014.…”

“…The bucket traps are in widespread use throughout the country. They are hung on palm trees and usually not placed on or buried in the ground (Hallett et al, 1993b;Rajapakse et al, 1998;Abraham et al, 2000;Vidyasagar et al, 2000b;Faleiro, 2005Faleiro, , 2006. On the other hand, stump trap (Massoud et al, 2012;Hoddle et al, 2013) is gaining popularity where bucket trap is placed on the top of stump, which are essentially log pieces of date palm deadwood.…”

Control of Rhynchophorus ferrugineus (Olivier, 1790) according to EU Decision 2007/365/EC in the Marche region (Central‐Eastern Italy)

“…These traps are employed both indirectly for monitoring, and directly for mass trapping (El Garhy, 1996; Gunawardena et al. , 1998; Rajapakse et al. , 1998; Abraham et al.…”