Field electroantennogram and trap assessments of aerosol pheromone dispensers for disrupting mating in Epiphyas postvittana

Abstract

An electronically controlled aerosol system for mating disruption was evaluated against Epiphyas postvittana Walker in apple orchards in New Zealand. The area in which male moths were affected by the aerosol system was examined using catches in traps radiating from a central single-point source of either one aerosol can dispenser or 100 polyethylene tubing dispensers, compared with catches in orchard plots without pheromone dispensers. Both pheromone dispensing systems decreased moth catch to similar levels at 5-10 m from the central release point, but there was 5.5-fold more pheromone released from aerosol cans than from polyethylene dispensers over a 24 h period. Trap catches were reduced by about 90% in plots treated with either five aerosol cans per hectare or uniform deployment of polyethylene dispensers. Recordings of electroantennograms in open grassed plots and orchards indicated that the treated cotton pad of an aerosol dispenser and a point source of 100 polyethylene tubing dispensers produced similar electroantennogram recordings. Electroantennogram recordings provided evidence that pheromone plume detection from a single-point source was maintained over a range of 5-40 m downwind in the orchard. On present evidence, aerosol pheromone dispensers could not be recommended for further testing towards control of E. postvittana under New Zealand conditions owing to their higher cost of purchase and operation.

Evaluation of aerosol devices for simultaneous disruption of sex pheromone communication in Cydia pomonella and Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

“…Correspondingly, fruit injury decreased as the density of Isomate dispensers was increased and was lowest in plots treated with 1,000 evenly-distributed dispensers/ha. These results are consistent with a recent study by Suckling et al (2007) with the light-brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walker), where disruption with PuVers ® did not exceed 90% and was below that achieved with 1,000 polyethylene tube dispensers/ha. Thus, under moderate to high C. pomonella population densities, it may not be possible to achieve eVective control with mating disruption by decreasing pheromone dispenser point source density with a compensating increase in release rate per dispenser.…”

“…Furthermore, their experiments were conducted in walnut orchards with trees of greater height and canopy size than the 3.7-5.5 m apple trees investigated in the current study. Greater canopy size may reduce wind speed and prevent pheromone loss resulting in better disruption (Suckling et al 2007). Perhaps the combination of larger canopy size of walnut than apple orchards and lower population densities of C. pomonella explains the diVerence in eYcacy between the Shorey and Gerber (1996a) study and the current results.…”

Biorational insecticides in pest management

“…141) To measure pheromone concentrations in the field three different techniques are commonly used: chemical analysis, field electroantennogram recordings and single sensillum recordings in the field. 142,143) These methods, however, do not indicate the success of the experiment directly, which should be assessed by other methods.…”

Communication Disruption of <I>Epiphyas postvittana</I> (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) By Using Two Formulations at Four Point Source Densities in Vineyards

“…1 Mating disruption of light brown apple moth (Suckling and Clearwater 1990) has been investigated for resistance management ), low residue apple production (Suckling and Shaw 1995), and to support fruit exports from New Zealand (Suckling et al 2011a) and Australia (Mo et al 2006). Until recently, the only slow release formulation reported has involved polyethylene plastic tubing (the Isomate "twist-ties," Shin Etsu Fine Chemicals, Tokyo), although aerosol formulations also have been investigated (Suckling et al 2007). It has previously been shown in orchards that efÞcacy in reducing male response is determined by atmospheric concentration of sex pheromone, as a function of point source density (Suckling et al 1999a).…”