Response of two tephritid species, Bactrocera oleae and Ceratitis capitata, to different emission levels of pheromone and parapheromone

Abstract

ElsevierNavarro Llopis, V.; Alfaro Cañamás, C.; Primo Millo, J.; Vacas González, S. (2011). Response of two tephritid species, Bactrocera oleae and Ceratitis capitata, to different emission levels of pheromone and parapheromone. Crop Protection. 30 (7) However, when a parapheromone was used with C. capitata, a fruit fly of the same family, the optimum emission value was not found and higher quantities of parapheromone attracted the same number of flies. The saturation effect of high concentrations of 30 pheromone and parapheromone is discussed.

Response of Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wied.) Males to Different Amounts of Trimedlure under Field Conditions

“…However, fly catches did not significantly increase with the increase TML release rate up to 6 times. This lack of saturation in response to higher pheromone concentrations could explain why TML do not produce flight disruption in C. capitata (Navarro Llopis et al, 2011) Due to the use of large amounts of TML in the Egyptian National area wide Program for Extermination of Fruit Flies for detection, survey and monitoring and its high economic cost, this study aimed to determine the optimal amount of TML that minimizes the economic costs of pest control without affecting the attraction efficiency.…”

Lures for red palm weevil trapping systems: aggregation pheromone and synthetic kairomone

“…Instead, the trend fitted a logarithmic model in which captures increase rapidly with emission rate up to a threshold (4–5 mg day −1 ) and then slow down, reaching a plateau. Thus, trap catches are not reduced above an optimum emission rate, as described for the response to sex pheromones in other insect orders, such as Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hemiptera . Lack of optimum pheromone release rate has already been described for the related species Rhynchophorus palmarum L., the South American palm weevil.…”

“…In general, sensitivity of pheromone‐based monitoring and efficacy of mass trapping strategies are very much determined by pheromone emission rates. It has been widely acknowledged that pheromone release rate must be controlled because insect response could decrease below and above an optimum value . Moreover, pheromone cost is a key parameter for the implementation of control methods of this kind; thus, optimum pheromone emission rates should be known to avoid pheromone waste.…”

Response ofTuta absoluta(Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) to Different Pheromone Emission Levels in Greenhouse Tomato Crops

“…The Box-Cox power transformation (λ) was employed to normalize trap catch data prior to analysis of variance (ANOVA). The equation employed to correlate the estimated release rates and trap captures was obtained following the same methodology used in previous works (Vacas et al 2009, Vacas et al 2011a, Navarro-Llopis et al 2011), which is now described. A multifactor ANOVA followed by Fisher's LSD test (P ≤ 0.05) was applied to study the effects of three factors on trap catch: week (time), block (position of the block inside the greenhouse) and emission level.…”

“…Very few studies have determined the optimal release rate of attractants (de Groot and DeBarr 1998, Cross et al 2006, Vacas et al 2009, Vacas et al 2011a, Navarro-Llopis et al 2011, Ryall et al 2012. In the present work, mesoporous dispensers were employed as tools to obtain different tested pheromone doses.…”