During bloom of spring orchard crops, bees are the primary providers of pollination service. Monitoring these insects for research projects is often done by timed observations or by direct aerial netting, but there has been increasing interest in blue vane traps as an efficient passive approach to collecting bees. Over multiple spring seasons in Michigan and Pennsylvania, orchards were monitored for wild bees using timed netting from crop flowers and blue vane traps. This revealed a distinctly different community of wild bees captured using the two methods, suggesting that blue vane traps can complement but cannot replace direct aerial netting. The bee community in blue vane traps was generally composed of nonpollinating species, which can be of interest for broader biodiversity studies. In particular, blue vane traps caught Eucera atriventris (Smith), Eucera hamata (Bradley), Bombus fervidus (F.), and Agapostemon virescens (F.) that were never collected from the orchard crop flowers during the study period. Captures of bee species in nets was generally stable across the 3 yr, whereas we observed significant declines in the abundance of Lasioglossum pilosum (Smith) and Eucera spp. trapped using blue vane traps during the project, suggesting local overtrapping of reproductive individuals. We conclude that blue vane traps are a useful tool for expanding insights into bee communities within orchard crop systems, but they should be used with great caution to avoid local extirpation of these important insects.

A two-year study was conducted evaluating PuVer ® aerosol dispensers (Suterra LLC, Bend, OR, USA) for mating disruption of codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.), and the oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck). The PuVer ® dispenser consists of a pressurized metal canister loaded with pheromone active ingredients dissolved in solvent and housed within a circuit-controlled, plastic dispensing cabinet programmed to release an aerosol spray of pheromone at regular intervals. PuVers ® were deployed at the label-recommended rate of 2.5 ha ¡1 and released ca. 5-10 mg of pheromone (depending on treatment) per 15 min during a 12-h cycle beginning each day at 15:00 h for the duration of the season. In 2005, commercially-managed apple plots (3.2-4.9 ha) were treated with PuVers ® releasing both species' pheromone simultaneously (dual-species) or with twice the number of adjacentlydeployed PuVers ® (4-6 m apart) releasing each individual species' pheromones (single-species), while maintaining comparable overall release rates of pheromone between these two treatments. Plots 100 m away and not treated with pheromone served as the control. Disruption of male C. pomonella and G. molesta orientation to pheromonebaited traps was 46-75 and 91-98%, respectively, in PuVer ® -treated plots compared with untreated controls.There was no statistical diVerence in moth disruption between plots treated with dual-species and single-species PuVers ® . Fruit injury was not statistically diVerent between PuVer ® -treated plots and control plots not receiving pheromone. In 2006, disruption of male moth orientation to traps was 24-26 and 84-97% in PuVer ® -treated plots (2.9-5.7 ha) for C. pomonella and G. molesta, respectively, compared with untreated controls. During this season, fruit injury was lower in pheromone-treated plots compared with untreated controls at mid-season, but not at pre-harvest. Combining the pheromone of both species into single PuVer ® units did not decrease eYcacy of disruption compared with deploying twice as many PuVers ® releasing a similar amount of each individual species' pheromone suggesting that multi-species disruption using PuVers ® is a viable option. However, we conclude that the eYcacy of disruption attained with low-densities (2.5 ha ¡1 ) of PuVers ® at the moth densities recorded in this study is insuYcient for eVective control of C. pomonella without input of companion insecticides.

No abstract

No abstract

Several application parameters of microencapsulated (MEC) sex pheromone formulations were manipulated to determine their impact on efficacy of disruption for codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.); oriental fruit moth, Grapholita molesta (Busck); obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris); and redbanded leafroller, Argyrotaenia velutinana (Walker). Depending on the experiment, the formulations evaluated were those formerly manufactured by 3M Canada (London, ON, Canada) or those that are currently available from Suterra LLC (Bend, OR). The efficacy of MEC formulations applied by air-blast sprayer evenly throughout the entire canopy of 2-3-m-tall apple (Malus spp.) trees was equivalent to treatments in which targeted applications of MECs were made to the lower or upper 1.5 m of the canopy (at equivalent overall rates) for oriental fruit moth and both leafroller species. The realized distribution of deposited microcapsules within the tree canopy corresponded well with the intended heights of application within the canopy. The additional coapplication of the pine resin sticker Nu-Film 17 increased efficacy but not longevity of MEC formulations for oriental fruit moth; this adjuvant had no added effects for codling moth or leafroller formulations. Increasing the rate of active ingredient (AI) per hectare by 20-30-fold (range 2.5-75.0 g/ha) did not improve the disruption efficacy of MECs for codling moth or either leafroller species when both low and high rates were applied at equivalent frequencies per season. A low-rate, high-frequency (nine applications per season) application protocol was compared with a standard protocol in which two to three applications were made per season, once before each moth generation for each species. The low-rate, high-frequency protocol resulted in equivalent or better disruption efficacy for each moth species, despite using two-fold less total AI per hectare per season with the former treatment. The low-rate, frequent-application protocol should make the use of MEC formulations of synthetic pheromone more economical and perhaps more effective.