2008
DOI: 10.1007/bf03356242
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Control of codling moth (Cydia pomonella L., Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by the “attract and kill” strategy

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The push for these technologies came from both the continued worldwide spread of resistance to various classes of insecticides, concerns with disruption of natural control of a suite of secondary pests, and the enactments of new national and global restrictions making entire classes of insecticides unavailable for codling moth management (Kogan 1998). Attractand-kill showed some efficacy in field trials, two products were registered, and these continued to be investigated and slowly adopted for more than a decade as an alternative to sex pheromone-based mating disruption (MD) (Stará et al 2008;Somsai et al 2010;Mansour 2010). Key factors driving continued interest in this approach were the beliefs that attract-and-kill would be more useful than MD in smaller and irregular shaped orchards, and especially in these blocks near interfaces with urban development to minimize environmental externalities associated with spray runoff and drift (Lösel et al 2002;Ioriatti & Angeli 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The push for these technologies came from both the continued worldwide spread of resistance to various classes of insecticides, concerns with disruption of natural control of a suite of secondary pests, and the enactments of new national and global restrictions making entire classes of insecticides unavailable for codling moth management (Kogan 1998). Attractand-kill showed some efficacy in field trials, two products were registered, and these continued to be investigated and slowly adopted for more than a decade as an alternative to sex pheromone-based mating disruption (MD) (Stará et al 2008;Somsai et al 2010;Mansour 2010). Key factors driving continued interest in this approach were the beliefs that attract-and-kill would be more useful than MD in smaller and irregular shaped orchards, and especially in these blocks near interfaces with urban development to minimize environmental externalities associated with spray runoff and drift (Lösel et al 2002;Ioriatti & Angeli 2002).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Integrated with insecticides, alternative methods are commonly used to control this insect (Starà et al, 2008;Odendaal et al, 2015;Arnault et al, 2016;Iraqui and Hmimina, 2016). Among these methods, mating disruption, which targets the olfactory system of C. pomonella males through the use of female sex pheromones, demonstrated efficient results to limit crop infestation (Hathaway et al, 1974;Ridgway et al, 1990;Light et al, 2001;Light, 2016).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Integrated with insecticides, alternative methods are commonly used to control this insect (Starà et al, 2008 ; Odendaal et al, 2015 ; Arnault et al, 2016 ; Iraqui and Hmimina, 2016 ). Among these methods, mating disruption, which targets the olfactory system of C. pomonella males through the use of female sex pheromones, demonstrated efficient results to limit crop infestation (Hathaway et al, 1974 ; Ridgway et al, 1990 ; Light et al, 2001 ; Light, 2016 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%