Remote monitoring of Cydia pomonella adults among an assemblage of nontargets in sex pheromone‐kairomone‐baited smart traps

Abstract

BACKGROUND Captures of codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), in traps are used to establish action thresholds and time insecticide sprays. The need for frequent trap inspections in often remote orchards has created a niche for remote sensing smart traps. A smart trap baited with a five‐component pheromone‐kairomone blend was evaluated for codling moth monitoring among an assemblage of other nontargets in apple and pear orchards. RESULTS Codling moth captures did not differ between the smart trap and a standard trap when both were checked manually. However, the correlation between automatic and manual counts of codling moth in the smart traps was low, R2 = 0.66 ÷ 0.87. False‐negative identifications by the smart trap were infrequent <5%, but false‐positive identifications accounted for up to 67% of the count. These errors were primarily due to the misidentification of three moth species of fairly similar‐size to codling moth: apple clearwing moth Synanthedon myopaeformis (Borkhausen), oriental fruit moth Grapholita molesta (Busck), and carnation tortrix Cacoecimorpha pronubana (Hübner). Other false‐positive counts were less frequent and included the misidentifications of dipterans, other arthropods, patches of moth scales, and the double counting of some moths. CONCLUSION Codling moth was successfully monitored remotely with a smart trap baited with a nonselective sex pheromone‐kairomone lure, but automatic counts were inflated in some orchards due to mischaracterizations of primarily similar‐sized nontarget moths. Improved image‐identification algorithms are needed for smart traps baited with less‐selective lures and with lure sets targeting multiple species.

Increasing catches of adult moth pests (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in pome fruit with low‐intensity LED lights added to sex pheromone/kairomone lure‐baited traps

“…The unintended catch of nontargets in light traps has been a major concern impacting the sorting and counting of the targeted species (Kim et al, 2019;Madsen & Sanborn, 1962). Ecological impacts from the broad-spectrum effect of lights on human health as well as insect (Frewin et al, 2022;Preti, Favaro, et al, 2020;Suto, 2022).…”

“…Further studies should compare the effectiveness of lure baited traps with LED lights to monitor more than one tortricid pest in orchards, and consider different wavelength emission ranges. Adoption of “smart traps” with remote visual identification software could benefit from simultaneous accurate counts of multiple pest populations (Frewin et al, 2022; Preti, Favaro, et al, 2020; Suto, 2022).…”

Codling Moth Monitoring with Camera-Equipped Automated Traps: A Review

“…However, manual confirmation is also a part of the customer service [18]. Cirjak et al [1] claimed that the Trapview standard model had a problem with detecting other objects than the target insect while Preti et al [61] observed that the system incorrectly detects morphologically similar insects. The original Z-Trap system is also not perfect.…”

Automatic Pest Monitoring Systems in Apple Production under Changing Climatic Conditions

“…There are many benefits to using automated pest monitoring equipment (Figure 2). Excessive use of pesticides and time spent on hard-to-reach work decreases, as do daily trips to inaccessible orchards [53][54][55]. However, depending on the pest control method, the pheromones and adhesive pads may need to be replaced occasionally to perform any maintenance [54].…”