Is attract‐and‐kill technology potent against insecticide‐resistant Lepidoptera?

Abstract

Attract-and-kill techniques, associating an attractant and a contact insecticide in a sticky formulation, are a new way of controlling Lepidopteran pests. Insecticide resistance may, however, limit the effectiveness and even the attractiveness of such formulations where resistance pleiotropic effects influence pheromone perception. We have tested this hypothesis on resistant codling moths Cydia pomonella (L) using a commercial formulation containing (E,E)-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol (codlemone), the major component of the sex pheromone, as an attractant and permethrin as toxicant. We first compared the attractiveness of codlemone in a wind tunnel and the contact toxicity of pyrethroids on males of one susceptible and of three strains selected for resistance to diflubenzuron, deltamethrin and azinphos-methyl. The dose-response relationships of males of susceptible and resistant strains to codlemone did not differ significantly. The deltamethrin-selected strain was the most resistant to pyrethroids, exhibiting 138-, 25- and 18-fold resistance ratios to deltamethrin, cypermethrin and permethrin, respectively. The efficiency of the attracticide formulation, applied successively on filter paper support, glass support and wood support, was estimated by recording the mortality delay of males after natural contact with the formulation in the wind tunnel. The deltamethrin- and diflubenzuron-resistant strains were significantly less affected than the susceptible strain by contact with the attracticide on the wooden support, exhibiting 58- and 2.3-fold greater LT50 ratios, respectively. Mortality of deltamethrin-resistant moths did not exceed 40% after 48 h. The LT50 value was significantly greater on filter paper support than on the two other supports. Surprisingly, the LT50 ratio of the deltamethrin-resistant strain was markedly higher on filter paper support (1021-fold), which was more absorbent, than on the glass support (31-fold). No sublethal effects in terms of pheromone response, mating or fecundity occurred in moths surviving contact with the attracticide. Choice of insecticides in attracticide formulations will be influenced by the resistance background of the target pests. Principles of insecticide resistance management may also be applied to attract-and-kill technology by alternating with other insecticides or control methods.

Insecticide resistance may enhance the response to a host-plant volatile kairomone for the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.)

“…Statistical significance was set at the 0.05 threshold. The frequency of kdr genotypes in moth populations captured in the Et-E,Z-D-baited traps were compared to those of moths captured in codlemone-baited traps using a chi-squared test with one degree of freedom, considering that the response to the sex pheromone was not altered by insecticide resistance (Poullot et al 2001). Considering the overlapping of mfo activity values in susceptible and resistant strains (Boivin et al 2004), the genotype of field-captured moths could not be clearly established for mfo-related resistance.…”

“…Behavior experiments were conducted in a Plexiglas flight tunnel (60 cm high, 60 cm wide, and 180 cm long), according to Poullot et al (2001). The attractive source was equidistant from the lateral sides of the wind tunnel, 30 cm above its floor and 130 cm from the moth release point.…”

“…However, the resulting fitness cost is rather low in this species, a decrease of 11% in the frequency of resistance to diflubenzuron being observed per generation in the absence of this insecticide (Boivin et al 2003b). Furthermore, the specific mate-recognition system is not modified in resistant populations of C. pomonella, as both sex pheromone production and perception are similar in susceptible and resistant laboratory strains (Poullot et al 2001). In addition, susceptible or resistant females attract similar number of males in the field, and traps baited with synthetic sex pheromone capture the same rate of susceptible and resistant males released in orchards (Frérot et al 1999).…”

Artemisia annuaextracts, artemisinin and 1,8-cineole, prevent fruit infestation by a major, cosmopolitan pest of apples

“…Some newer chemical agents such as spinetoram or neonicotinoids, are in the implementation stage. Pheromone-based insect control measures such as mating disruption or attract-and-kill do not resolve problems caused by migration of moths from adjacent areas (Wolfgang, 1989) or insecticide resistance (Poullot et al, 2001). Research on alternative strategies of combating codling moth is needed.…”

Prospects of monosodium glutamate use for enhancement of spinosad toxicity against codling moth neonates

“…Because codling moth larvae bore into fruit and feed there until their larval development is complete, contact pesticides are used that target adults, eggs, and neonate larvae. However, pesticide-resistant lepidopterans (23), and the Food Quality Protection Act (12), soon will require a drastic reduction in the use of broad-spectrum pesticides (e.g. azinphosmethyl), and favor the introduction of new, more effective, and environmentally friendly formulations.…”