DOCSLIB.ORG

Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Mating Disruption A REVIEW OF THE USE OF MATING DISRUPTION TO MANAGE GYPSY MOTH, LYMANTRIA DISPAR (L.) KEVIN THORPE, RICHARD REARDON, KSENIA TCHESLAVSKAIA, DONNA LEONARD, AND VICTOR MASTRO FHTET-2006-13 U.S. Department Forest Forest Health Technology September 2006 of Agriculture Service Enterprise Team—Morgantown he Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) was created in 1995 Tby the Deputy Chief for State and Private Forestry, USDA, Forest Service, to develop and deliver technologies to protect and improve the health of American forests. This book was published by FHTET as part of the technology transfer series. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/ Cover photos, clockwise from top left: aircraft-mounted pod for dispensing Disrupt II flakes, tethered gypsy moth female, scanning electron micrograph of 3M MEC-GM microcapsule formulation, male gypsy moth, Disrupt II flakes, removing gypsy moth egg mass from modified delta trap mating station. Information about pesticides appears in this publication. Publication of this information does not constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does it imply that all uses discussed have been registered. Use of most pesticides is regulated by State and Federal law. Applicable regulations must be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies. CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife if not handled or applied properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended practices given on the label for use and disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers. The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for information only and does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agricul- ture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. A REVIEW OF THE USE OF MATING DISRUPTION TO MANAGE GYPSY MOTH, LYMANTRIA DISPAR (L.) Kevin Thorpe USDA Agricultural Research Service, Insect Biocontrol Laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland Richard Reardon USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West Virginia Ksenia Tcheslavskaia Department of Entomology, Virginia Technical University, Blacksburg, Virginia Donna Leonard USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Asheville, North Carolina Victor Mastro USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Pest Survey Detection and Exclusion Laboratory, Otis Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts For additional copies of this publication or information concerning the use of mating disruption for gypsy moth, contact Kevin Thorpe in Beltsville, Maryland, at (301) 504-5139 (e-mail: [email protected]. usda.gov), Donna Leonard in Asheville, North Carolina, at (828) 257-4329 (e-mail: [email protected]), Richard Reardon in Morgantown, West Virginia, at (304) 285-1563 (e-mail: [email protected]), Lenora MacNevin at the Otis Air National Guard Base, Massachussetts, at (508) 563-9303 x0 (e-mail: Lenora. [email protected]), or the local Cooperative Extension Service office. A Review of the Use of Mating Disruption to Manage Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar (L.) __________________ PREFACE This review is published as part of a joint USDA program conducted by three of its agencies —Forest Service (FS), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and Animal and Plant Health In- spection Service (APHIS)—to develop specific methods for managing sparse-density popula- tions of the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (L.). The program is supported through the efforts of these agencies and private industry. Field and laboratory studies are conducted to solve problems associated with the use of mat- ing disruption to manage sparse-density gypsy moth populations. Also provided is technical assistance to improve the quality of operational programs involving the aerial application of pheromones for managing gypsy moth. This publication (August 2006), A Review of the Use of Mating Disruption to Manage Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar (L.), is an update of handbook FHTET-98-01 printed in January 1998 (Reardon et al. 1998). It contains all of the information included in the January 1998 hand- book as well as the results of studies conducted through 2005. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We express our appreciation to the USDA Forest Service Northeastern Area State and Pri- vate Forestry, Appalachian Integrated Pest Management (AIPM) Gypsy Moth Project for major funding from 1988 through mid-1993, the National Center of Forest Health Manage- ment from mid-1993 through 1994, the Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team from 1995 through 2002, the Slow-the-Spread Program from 1998 to the present, and the Gypsy Moth Mating Disruption Working Group. The authors thank Ralph Webb and Barbara Leonhardt for their early contributions to the development of mating disruption for gypsy moth, Win McLane, Steve Talley, Dave Cowan, Tim Murray, and Dee Dee Sellers for their assistance during numerous field trials, and Tim Roland and Bruce Radsick, APHIS pilots. Thanks also to USDA APHIS personnel responsible for rearing the gypsy moths used in this project through the years, including Gary Bernon, Frank Martin, John Tanner, Christine Lokerson, Hanna Antell, Susan Lane, Alyssa Pierce, Carrie Reidel, and many others. We also thank field personnel from various agencies and locations including Andrea Hickman, Sam New- comer, Peggy Leasure, Robert Bennett, Geoff White, Tod Sukontarak, Gleb Tcheslavski, Kim Murphy, Michael Merz, Ken Klein, and a great many others. Finally, we thank Gary Heiser, Gary Spires, Tim Tigner, Vance Coffey, Terry Brennen, Mike Womack, and Tammy Ingle for providing access to and assistance with study sites, Priscilla Maclean (Hercon Environmen- tal), Grant Oliver (3M Canada), Reg Coler (ISCA Technologies), and Greg Stamm (Shin-Etsu Chemical), Al’s Aerial Spraying, Dave Devilbiss for analysis of disparlure samples, and Alexei Sharov for various scientific input. Finally, thanks to Mark Riffe for editing and layout. II ___________________A Review of the Use of Mating Disruption to Manage Gypsy Moth, Lymantria dispar (L.) CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 MATING BIOLOGY OF THE GYPSY MOTH ....................................................................2 MATING DISRUPTION OF THE GYPSY MOTH ...............................................................2 ASSESSING BIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF MATING DISRUPTION ......................................3 DEVELOPMENT OF MATING DISRUPTION, 1971 THROUGH 1989 ....................................4 Before 1989—Initial Development and Application ....................................................... 4 1989—A Transitional Year ............................................................................................... 5 Efficacy ...................................................................................................................... 6 Deposition ................................................................................................................. 7 Residual Activity ........................................................................................................ 7 Summary of 1989 Results .......................................................................................... 8 SECOND STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION, 1990-1997 ..................................8 1990—A New Bead Formulation .................................................................................... 8 Disrupt II .................................................................................................................... 10 Efficacy .................................................................................................................... 10 Residual Activity ...................................................................................................... 11 Bead Formulation ....................................................................................................... 12 Efficacy .................................................................................................................... 12 Residual Activity ...................................................................................................... 12 Deposition ............................................................................................................... 14 Laboratory Evaluations ............................................................................................. 14 Summary of 1990 Results ........................................................................................... 14 1991—Methods Development for the Bead Formulation ............................................. 15 Bead Formulation ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Composite Insect Trap: an Innovative Combination Trap for Biologically Diverse Sampling
    The Composite Insect Trap: An Innovative Combination Trap for Biologically Diverse Sampling Laura Russo1*, Rachel Stehouwer2, Jacob Mason Heberling3, Katriona Shea1 1 Biology Department, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America, 2 Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America, 3 Department of Biology, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, United States of America Abstract Documentation of insect diversity is an important component of the study of biodiversity, community dynamics, and global change. Accurate identification of insects usually requires catching individuals for close inspection. However, because insects are so diverse, most trapping methods are specifically tailored to a particular taxonomic group. For scientists interested in the broadest possible spectrum of insect taxa, whether for long term monitoring of an ecosystem or for a species inventory, the use of several different trapping methods is usually necessary. We describe a novel composite method for capturing a diverse spectrum of insect taxa. The Composite Insect Trap incorporates elements from four different existing trapping methods: the cone trap, malaise trap, pan trap, and flight intercept trap. It is affordable, resistant, easy to assemble and disassemble, and collects a wide variety of insect taxa. Here we describe the design, construction, and effectiveness of the Composite Insect Trap tested during a study of insect diversity. The trap catches a broad array of insects and can eliminate the need to use multiple trap types in biodiversity studies. We propose that the Composite Insect Trap is a useful addition to the trapping methods currently available to ecologists and will be extremely effective for monitoring community level dynamics, biodiversity assessment, and conservation and restoration work.
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, DCEPT CLM PLUS,01/06/2015
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA Reg. Number: Date of Issuance: Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (751 IP) 80286-23 1/6/2016 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. (A) Washington, D.C. 20460 NOTICE OF PESTICIDE: Term of Issuance: X Registration ___Reregistration Unconditional (under FIFRA, as amended) Name of Pesticide Product: Dcept CLM Plus Name and Address of Registrant (include ZIP Code): ISCA Technologies, Inc. 1230 Spring Street Riverside, CA 92507 Note: Changes in labeling differing in substance from that accepted in connection with this registration must be submitted to and accepted by the Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division prior to use of the label in commerce. In any correspondence on this product, always refer to the above EPA Registration Number. On the basis of information furnished by the registrant, the above named pesticide is hereby registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA or the Act). Registration is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or recommendation of this product by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In order to protect health and the environment, the Administrator, on his or her motion, may at any time suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide in accordance with the Act. The acceptance of any name in connection with the registration of a product under the Act is not to be construed as giving the registrant a right to exclusive use of the name or to its use if it has been covered by others. This product is unconditionally registered in accordance with FIFRA section 3(c)(5) provided that you: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Commercial Pheromone Lures and Traps for Monitoring Male Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Coastal Region of Chiapas, Mexico
    Malo et al.: Monitoring S. frugiperda with sex pheromone 659 EVALUATION OF COMMERCIAL PHEROMONE LURES AND TRAPS FOR MONITORING MALE FALL ARMYWORM (LEPIDOPTERA: NOCTUIDAE) IN THE COASTAL REGION OF CHIAPAS, MEXICO EDI A. MALO, LEOPOLDO CRUZ-LOPEZ, JAVIER VALLE-MORA, ARMANDO VIRGEN, JOSE A. SANCHEZ AND JULIO C. ROJAS Departamento de Entomología Tropical, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, Apdo. Postal 36, Tapachula, 30700, Chiapas, Mexico ABSTRACT Commercially available sex pheromone lures and traps were evaluated for monitoring male fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda, in maize fields in the coastal region of Chia- pas, Mexico during 1998-1999. During the first year, Chemtica and Trécé lures performed better than Scentry lures, and there was no difference between Scentry lures and unbaited controls. In regard to trap design, Scentry Heliothis traps were better than bucket traps. In 1999, the pattern of FAW captured was similar to that of 1998, although the number of males captured was lower. The interaction between both factors, traps and lures, was signif- icant in 1999. Bucket traps had the lowest captures regardless of what lure was used. Scen- try Heliothis traps with Chemtica lure captured more males than with other lures or the controls. Delta traps had the greatest captures with Chemtica lure, followed by Trécé and Pherotech lures. Several non-target insects were captured in the FAW pheromone baited traps. The traps captured more non-target insects than FAW males in both years. Baited traps captured more non-target insects than unbaited traps. Key Words: Spodoptera frugiperda, sex pheromone, monitoring, maize, Mexico RESUMEN Se evaluaron feromonas y trampas comercialmente disponibles para el monitoreo del gusano cogollero Spodoptera frugiperda en cultivo de maíz en la costa de Chiapas, México durante 1998-1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Pheromone Trap Design and Lures for Spodoptera Frugiperda in Togo and Genetic Characterization of Moths Caught
    DOI: 10.1111/eea.12795 Comparison of pheromone trap design and lures for Spodoptera frugiperda in Togo and genetic characterization of moths caught Robert L. Meagher Jr1* ,KomiAgboka2, Agbeko Kodjo Tounou2,DjimaKoffi3,Koffi Aquilas Agbevohia2,Tomfe€ı Richard Amouze2, Kossi Mawuko Adjevi2 &RodneyN. Nagoshi1 1USDA-ARS CMAVE, Insect Behavior and Biocontrol Research Unit, Gainesville, FL 32608, USA , 2Ecole Superieure d’Agronomie, UniversitedeLome, 01 BP 1515, Lome 1, Togo , and 3Africa Regional Postgraduate Programme in Insect Science, University of Ghana, Accra, Ghana Accepted: 29 November 2018 Key words: fall armyworm, monitoring, host strain markers, maize, Lepidoptera, Noctuidae, integrated pest management, IPM, rice, Leucania loreyi, COI gene, Tpi gene Abstract Fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a pest of grain and vegetable crops endemic to the Western Hemisphere that has recently become widespread in sub- Saharan Africa and has appeared in India. An important tool for monitoring S. frugiperda in the USA is pheromone trapping, which would be of value for use with African populations. Field experiments were conducted in Togo (West Africa) to compare capture of male fall armyworm using three com- mercially available pheromone lures and three trap designs. The objectives were to identify optimum trap 9 lure combinations with respect to sensitivity, specificity, and cost. Almost 400 moths were captured during the experiment. Differences were found in the number of S. frugiperda moths cap- tured in the various trap designs and with the three pheromone lures, and in the number of non-tar- get moths captured with each lure. The merits of each trap 9 lure combination are discussed with respect to use in Africa.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Infestations Page
    Chapter 5: Biological Infestations Page A. Overview ........................................................................................................................... 5:1 What information will I find in this chapter? ....................................................................... 5:1 What is a museum pest? ................................................................................................... 5:1 What conditions support museum pest infestations? ....................................................... 5:2 B. Responding to Infestations ............................................................................................ 5:2 What should I do if I find live pests or signs of pests in or around museum collections? .. 5:2 What should I do after isolating the infested object? ......................................................... 5:3 What should I do after all infested objects have been removed from the collections area? ................................................................................................ 5:5 What treatments can I use to stop an infestation? ............................................................ 5:5 C. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) ................................................................................ 5:8 What is IPM? ..................................................................................................................... 5:9 Why should I use IPM? .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Combined Effects of Mating Disruption, Insecticides, and the Sterile Insect
    insects Article Combined Effects of Mating Disruption, Insecticides, and the Sterile Insect Technique on Cydia pomonella in New Zealand Rachael M. Horner 1,* , Peter L. Lo 2, David J. Rogers 2, James T. S. Walker 2 and David Maxwell Suckling 1,3 1 The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Private Bag 4704, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand; [email protected] 2 The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Havelock North 4157, New Zealand; [email protected] (P.L.L.); [email protected] (D.J.R.); [email protected] (J.T.S.W.) 3 School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland 1072, New Zealand * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +64-3-940-3934 Received: 21 October 2020; Accepted: 25 November 2020; Published: 27 November 2020 Simple Summary: Codling moth is a major pest of apples, and was accidentally introduced into New Zealand over 150 years ago. Many countries that New Zealand exports apples to do not have codling moth present and they want to keep it out. Therefore, apple growers must heavily control codling moth populations on their orchards. Currently, the main control tactics are insecticide applications and mating disruption, which uses the moth’s own sex pheromone to make the males unable to find females to mate. We aimed to supplement these tactics with the sterile insect technique (SIT) to further suppress the codling moth on orchards. SIT involves mass rearing and sterilizing codling moth and then releasing them onto orchards where they mate with wild insects resulting in no offspring.
    [Show full text]
  • Lymantria Dispar) Populations in the USA
    Area-Wide Management of Invading Gypsy Moth (Lymantria dispar) Populations in the USA Andrew Liebhold, USDA Forest Service Northern Research Station, Morgantown, WV USA Numbers of Damaging Non-native Forest Insect & Pathogen species Morgantown, West Virginia Liebhold, A.M., D.G. McCullough, L.M. Blackburn, S.J. Frankel, B. Von Holle and J.E. Aukema. 2013. A highly aggregated geographical distribution of forest pest invasions in the USA. Diversity and Distributions 19, 1208-1216. Alien Forest Insect Establishments in US Over Time All alien forest insects 2.6 species per year 0.5 species per year Economically damaging insect pests Cumulative Pest Establishments Cumulative Year Medford, Massachusetts, 1868 Étienne Léopold Trouvelot, 1827 - 1895 27 Myrtle St., Medford, MA Forbush EH, Fernald CH (1896) The gypsy moth, Porthetria dispar (Linn). Wright and Potter, Boston Eradication is attempted, 1880-1900 “Barrier Zone” The DDT era Application of DDT over Scanton, PA (1948) Gypsy Moth Management Detection / Slow the Eradication Spread Suppression Gypsy Moth Outbreaks Nuisance and aesthetic impacts on homeowners Defoliation Suppression Gypsy Moth Management Detection / Slow the Eradication Spread Suppression Accidental movement of life stages Generally infested Uninfested area area Transition area Gypsy Moth Egg Masses Accidentally Transported During Household Moves Use of pheromone traps to locate and delimit isolated colonies delta trap delimitation base grid grid treatment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 0 moths/trap >0 moths/trap treatment 350 European
    [Show full text]
  • Citrus Leafminer, Phyllocnistis Citrella Stainton (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Phyllocnistinae)1 J
    EENY038 Citrus Leafminer, Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Phyllocnistinae)1 J. B. Heppner and Thomas R. Fasulo2 Introduction Homestead, Florida, other parts of Dade county, and in Broward and Collier counties. Since then, it has spread The citrus leafminer (CLM), Phyllocnistis citrella Stainton, to all Florida citrus counties. By 1994, it has spread to is a potentially serious pest of citrus and related Rutaceae, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas (Nagamine and Heu 2003). and some related ornamental plants (Beattie 1989, Clausen By 1995, the citrus leafminer was discovered in Central 1933, Kalshoven 1981). CLM was previously intercepted in America, western Mexico, and several Caribbean islands the USA in 1914 (ports not noted) on citrus and Atalantia (Jones 2001). In 2000, it arrived in southern California horticulture stock imports from the Philippines (Sasscer from Mexico (Grafton-Cardwell et al. 2009), and was first 1915). In 1993, when it was finally discovered in Florida, it detected in Hawaii on Oahu, spreading to Kauai and Maui was a new record for Florida, the continental United States, in 2001 and Molokai and Hawaii (the Big Island) in 2002 and the Western Hemisphere. (Nagamine and Heu 2003) Distribution Description A widespread Asian species (Clausen 1931, 1933, CAB Adults of the CLM are minute moths with a 4 mm 1970), described from Calcutta, India (Stainton 1856), wingspread. It has white and silvery iridescent scales on CLM is known from East Africa — Sudan to Yemen the forewings, with several black and tan markings, plus (Badawy 1967), through southern Asia — Saudi Arabia a black spot on each wingtip. The hind wings and body to India (Fletcher 1920) and Indonesia (Kalshoven 1981), are white, with long fringe scales extending from the north to Hong Kong and China, Philippines (Sasscer 1915), hindwing margins.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Trap Design, Windbreaks, and Weather on Captures of European Corn Borer
    Entomology Publications Entomology 12-2006 Impact of Trap Design, Windbreaks, and Weather on Captures of European Corn Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Pheromone-Baited Traps Brendon James Reardon Iowa State University Douglas V. Sumerford Iowa State University Thomas W. Sappington Iowa State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ent_pubs Part of the Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Atmospheric Sciences Commons, Entomology Commons, and the Systems Biology Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ ent_pubs/226. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Entomology Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Impact of Trap Design, Windbreaks, and Weather on Captures of European Corn Borer (Lepidoptera: Crambidae) in Pheromone-Baited Traps Abstract Pheromone-baited traps are often used in ecological studies of the European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). However, differences in trap captures may be confounded by trap design, trap location relative to a windbreak, and changes in local weather. The bjo ectives of this experiment were, first, to examine differences in O. nubilalis adult (moth) captures among the Intercept wing trap, the Intercept bucket/funnel UNI trap, and the Hartstack wire-mesh, 75-cm-diameter cone trap (large metal cone trap) as well as among three cone trap designs.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of the Most Effective Trap to Monitor the Presence of the Cactus Moth Cactoblastis Cactorum (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
    300 Florida Entomologist 88(3) September 2005 DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE TRAP TO MONITOR THE PRESENCE OF THE CACTUS MOTH CACTOBLASTIS CACTORUM (LEPIDOPTERA: PYRALIDAE) STEPHANIE BLOEM1, STEPHEN D. HIGHT2, JAMES E. CARPENTER3 AND KENNETH A. BLOEM4 1Center for Biological Control, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL 32308 2USDA-ARS-CMAVE at Florida A&M University, Center for Biological Control, Tallahassee, FL 32308 3USDA-ARS-CPMRU, Tifton, GA 31794 4USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, at Florida A&M University, Center for Biological Control, Tallahassee, FL 32307 ABSTRACT Various trap specifications were evaluated to identify the most effective trap for capturing wild male Cactoblastis cactorum (Berg). All traps were baited with virgin female C. cac- torum and, except for the first comparison of trap type, a standard wing trap was used in all experiments. Although wing traps captured more males than did the other trap types (delta or bucket), the differences were not significant. However, significantly higher numbers of males were captured in wing traps placed 2 m above ground than traps at 1 m or 0.5 m, and wing traps baited with four virgin females caught significantly more males than wing traps baited with a single female. Differences in number of males captured by young and old fe- males were not significant, but more than twice as many males were captured in traps baited with one-day-old females than traps baited with four day old females. In addition, there were no significant differences in number of males caught in unpainted, white, wing traps and wing traps painted one of eight different colors (flat white, black, dark green, flu- orescent green, yellow, fluorescent yellow, orange, or blue), although, more males were cap- tured in the unpainted wing traps.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance of Pheromone-Baited Traps to Monitor the Seasonal Abundance of Tortrix Moths in Chestnut Groves
    insects Article Performance of Pheromone-Baited Traps to Monitor the Seasonal Abundance of Tortrix Moths in Chestnut Groves Chiara Ferracini 1,* , Cristina Pogolotti 1, Giada Lentini 1, Valerio Saitta 1, Enrico Busato 1, Franco Rama 2 and Alberto Alma 1 1 Department of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences (DISAFA), University of Torino, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy; [email protected] (C.P.); [email protected] (G.L.); [email protected] (V.S.); [email protected] (E.B.); [email protected] (A.A.) 2 Biological Products Unit, Isagro S.p.A., Via Fauser, 28, 28100 Novara, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0116708700 Received: 9 October 2020; Accepted: 15 November 2020; Published: 17 November 2020 Simple Summary: Investigations were performed in 2018–2019 in chestnut groves in northern Italy to monitor the seasonal flight activity of Pammene fasciana (L.), Cydia fagiglandana (Zeller), and C. splendana (Hübner) with pheromone-baited traps. Commercially available and experimental pheromone blends were tested. Newly formed chestnut husks and fruits were randomly collected to evaluate damage. Damage was correlated with trap catches. P. fasciana was present in all the sites, while Cydia species were recorded in three of six sites, with differences in abundance related to pheromone blends studied. Several morphologically similar non-target species occurred, highlighting the risk of overestimating catches. Fruit damage did not correlate with trap captures, suggesting that monitoring probably underestimates the true size of the moths’ populations. These data contribute to ascertaining the presence of tortrix moths in northern Italian chestnut groves, and are important for planning specific control measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Ro Uc Atalogue 8
    atalogue C ct u d o r P 2018 1 Slimey Pests 8 Furry Pests 9 Bird Brained Pests 14 Flying Pests 16 Crawling Pests 20 Personal Protection 23 Product Key Manufactured in New Zealand Non toxic and kinder on the environment For use in the home For use in the garden For use on the land NoPests® Simple Pest Solutions that Work. Pest control doesn’t have to be hard! We are great believers in keeping things simple. NoPests® is about bringing no-nonsense, effective, do it yourself pest control to the people. Products that Really Work Innovative Technology Tested and proven within New Zealand’s harsh, and We are constantly reviewing our products to ensure often unforgiving environment ensuring that every that they are inline with the latest in pest control product is up to the task. innovation and technology. Whether this is the raw ingredients in our insecticides or the materials and Too Easy Application construction of our traps and bait stations, you can be assured they are leading the industry. Effective do it yourself pest control with simple instructions ensures success no matter your level of experience. Non Toxic Environmentally Friendly We try our best to use non toxic ingredients to ensure we are being friendly to the environment. However, this is not always possible as some pests are more difficult to control than others. You can identify the non-toxic products in our range by the “Non Toxic” logo. New Zealand Made Where possible, we develop and manufacture our NoPests® products in New Zealand ensuring that our products are tailored for our unique environment.
    [Show full text]