Pheromones: Their potential role in control of agricultural insect pests

Abstract

Serious side effects from the conventional use of traditional chemical pesticides for routine arthropod pest management have prompted the investigation and development of alternate strategies for the minimization of pest damage. Insect sex pheromones have been proposed as a potential group of alternative control agents for over twenty years. The possible uses of these substances for insect control are discussed and factors influencing their development for pest management are presented. The scientific research and commercial development of oriental fruit moth mating disruption is presented as a case study for the commercialization of this approach. Advantages and limitations of pheromone-based control tactics are presented. Mating disruption technology is starting to find its place in a number of diverse cropping situations. The use of pheromones for pest control promises to be an important component of the ongoing challenge to develop alternatives that may help to solve major environmental and human health problems associated with chemical pesticide use in agriculture.

Evaluation of extended‐season mating disruption of the Oriental fruit moth Grapholita molesta (Busck) (Lep., Tortricidae) in apples

“…One of the major limiting factors to successful use of OFM mating disruption is the perceived cost (Kirsch, 1988;Rice and Kirsch, 1990). Isomate-M 100 costs approximately $100/ha, and an additional $15/ha for application, whereas Isomate-M Rosso dispensers cost twice as much as Isomate-M 100 dispensers, and applied at 1.6 times the number per ha of Isomate-M 100 dispensers.…”

“…The use of sex pheromones for mating disruption involves the prolonged release of large quantities of pheromone to disrupt communication between male and female insects, which results in delayed mating, fewer fertile eggs and less damage (Kirsch, 1988;Knight, 1996). Mating disruption has proven to be a highly effective approach for control of many tortricid pests in a number of crops including codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) in pears (Moffitt and Westigard, 1984), and apples (Barnes et al, 1992); Eupoecilia ambiguella Hbner (Charmillot et al, 1987) JEN 128(9/10) doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0418.2004.00906.664-669 Ó 2004 and Lobesia botrana Den.…”

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

“…Pheromone-mediated mating disruption is an alternative strategy which is compatible with biological control programs and has minimal effect on human health and the environment (Kirsch 1988). Mating disruption has been investigated for management of a number of tortricid pests of apple, including the codling moth (Barnes et al 1992, Pfeiffer et al 1993a, redbanded leafroller (Novak andRoelofs 1985, Pfeiffer et al 1993b), obliquebanded leafroller (Lawson et al 1996), variegated leafroller and tufted apple bud moth (Pfeiffer et al 1993b, Felland et al 1995.…”

Regulation of semiochemicals ? global aspects

“…Acute oral toxicity LDs0 >5-34.6 g kg -1 c >3->50 g kg -1 c >5 g kg -~ ¢ (rat) (n = 10) (n = 7) (n = 3) Acute dermal toxicity >2-20.25 g kg -1 ¢ >2-5 g kg -1 c >2->5 g kg -~ c LDS0 (rat) (n = 9) (n = 4) (n = 3) Acute inhalation toxicity 3.3-32 mg1-1 c 5.26 mg1-1 ¢ >5-16.88 mg1-1 c LCs0 (rat) (n = 5) (n = 1) (n = 3) aThese data were abstracted from Treon (1963), Deichman and Gerarde (1969), Moreno (1973Moreno ( , 1974Moreno ( , 1980, Levenstein (1974Levenstein ( , 1976, Beroza et al (1975), Hodosh et al (1985, and Kirsch (1988). bwith regard to primary dermal irritation and eye irritation, several of the compounds were slightly to moderately irritating to skin; none were classified as an eye irritant.…”