Reduced Mating Success of Female Tortricid Moths Following Intense Pheromone Auto-Exposure Varies with Sophistication of Mating System

Abstract

Mating disruption is a valuable tool for the management of pest lepidopteran species in many agricultural crops. Many studies have addressed the effect of female pheromone on the ability of males to find calling females but, so far, fewer have addressed the effect of pheromone on the mating behavior of females. We hypothesized that mating of female moth species may be adversely affected following sex pheromone auto-exposure, due to abnormal behavioral activity and/or antennal sensitivity. Our results indicate that, for Grapholita molesta and Pandemis pyrusana females, copulation, but not calling, was reduced following pre-exposure to sex pheromone. In contrast, for Cydia pomonella and Choristoneura rosaceana, sex pheromone pre-exposure did not affect either calling or copulation propensity. Adaptation of female moth antennae to their own sex pheromone, following sex pheromone auto-exposure, as measured by electroantennograms, occurred in a species for which identical exposure reduced mating success (G. molesta) and in a species for which such exposure did not affect mating success (C. rosaceana). These results suggest that pre-exposure of female moths of certain species to sex pheromone may further contribute to the success of pheromone-based mating disruption. Therefore, we conclude that, in some species, mating disruption may include a secondary mechanism that affects the mating behavior of female moths, in addition to that of males.

When mating disruption does not disrupt mating: fitness consequences of delayed mating in moths

“…These mechanisms do not work independently of each other, but rather in concert to interfere with sex pheromone communication of insect pests (Sanders, 1997). Recent evidence suggests that mating disruption may also be mediated by effects of pheromone treatment on female reproductive behaviors (Kuhns et al, 2012).…”

Combined approaches using sex pheromone and pear ester for behavioural disruption of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

“…Unfortunately, research has not yet evaluated the effects on females of the frequency and level of exposure to pear ester alone and in combination with codlemone on behaviours that have been previously evaluated with codlemone alone, such as adult positioning in the canopy, calling duration and frequency and mating success (Weissling and Knight , ; Kuhns et al. ).…”

“…Their conclusion is contradicted by a series of reports on combo dispenser activity that have progressively demonstrated that the loading dose formulation of PVC dispensers can be substantially reduced and made more subtle for both codlemone and pear ester content while still achieving comparable disruption activity Stelinski et al 2007Stelinski et al , 2013Bohnenblust et al 2011;Knight et al 2012a, b). Unfortunately, research has not yet evaluated the effects on females of the frequency and level of exposure to pear ester alone and in combination with codlemone on behaviours that have been previously evaluated with codlemone alone, such as adult positioning in the canopy, calling duration and frequency and mating success Knight 1995, 1996;Kuhns et al 2012).…”

Life history changes in Trogoderma variabile and T. inclusum due to mating delay with implications for mating disruption as a management tactic

“…Mating disruption (MD) is a pest management technique where the ability of males and females to access each other is interfered with via competitive, false-trail following, induced allopatry, and induced arrestment (Miller & Gut, 2015;Miller, Gut, De Lame, & Stelinski, 2006b;Miller, Siegert, Amimo, & Walker, 2009), and/or noncompetitive, desensitization or habituation (Jones & Aihara-Sasaki, 2001;Kaissling, 1986;Stelinski, Gut, & Miller, 2003a;Stelinski, Miller, & Gut, 2003b), camouflage or when the signal is impaired between males and females (Kuhns, Pelz-Stelinski, & Stelinski, 2012;Schröder & Hilker, 2008) mechanisms. In recent years, commercial treatments using sex pheromone-based MD have increased 75%, covering 750,000 hectares across the globe and targeting more than 20 species (Carde & Minks, 1995;Miller & Gut, 2015;Wenninger & Averill, 2006).…”