Premium
Potential of high‐density pheromone‐releasing microtraps for control of codling moth Cydia pomonella and obliquebanded leafroller Choristoneura rosaceana
Author(s) -
REINKE MICHAEL D.,
MILLER JAMES R.,
GUT LARRY J.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
physiological entomology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.693
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1365-3032
pISSN - 0307-6962
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3032.2011.00816.x
Subject(s) - codling moth , mating disruption , orchard , biology , tortricidae , pheromone , sex pheromone , horticulture , pheromone trap , botany , toxicology , pest analysis , lepidoptera genitalia
Recent large‐cage studies with codling moth Cydia pomonella (L.) reveal that the removal of moths from an apple orchard using pheromone‐releasing traps is more effective at reducing capture in a central monitoring trap than is a mating disruption protocol without kill/capture. The present study uses open orchard 0.2‐ha plots comparing a high‐density trapping scenario with mating disruption to confirm those results. Two tortricid moth pests of tree fruit are studied: codling moth and obliquebanded leafroller Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris). Codling moth treatments include Isomate CM FLEX (ShinEtsu Ltd, Japan), nonsticky traps baited with Trécé CM lures (Trécé, Inc., Adair, Oklahoma), and sticky traps baited with Trécé CM lures, all at equal application rates of 500 dispensers ha −1 , as well as a no pheromone control. These microtraps are of a novel design, small and easy to apply, and potentially inexpensive to produce. Mating disruption using Isomate CM FLEX and nonsticky traps reduces codling moth capture in standard monitoring traps by 58% and 71%, respectively. The attract‐and‐remove treatment with sticky traps reduces capture by 92%. Obliquebanded leafroller treatments include Isomate OBLR/PLR Plus and Pherocon IIB microtraps baited with Trécé OBLR lures, both applied at 500 dispensers ha −1 , as well as a no pheromone control. Mating disruption reduces capture in monitoring traps by 69%. The attract‐and‐remove treatment reduces capture by 85%. Both studies suggest that an attract‐and‐remove approach has the potential to provide superior control of moth populations compared with that achieved by mating disruption operating by competitive attraction.