Control of light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera : Tortricidae) using an attracticide

Citation
Dm. Suckling et Eg. Brockerhoff, Control of light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera : Tortricidae) using an attracticide, J ECON ENT, 92(2), 1999, pp. 367-372
Citations number
20
Categorie Soggetti
Entomology/Pest Control
Journal title
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
ISSN journal
00220493 → ACNP
Volume
92
Issue
2
Year of publication
1999
Pages
367 - 372
Database
ISI
SICI code
0022-0493(199904)92:2<367:COLBAM>2.0.ZU;2-7
Abstract
An attracticide, based on Novartis' Sirene and consisting of droplets conta ining pheromone and permethrin, was formulated and tested against Epiphyas postvittana (Walker) in orchards of apple, Malus domestica Borkhauser, in C anterbury, New Zealand. There was no significant difference in the number o f E. postvittana caught with traps baited with 3 virgin females, rubber sep ta, or attracticide droplets. A field trial in an unsprayed 50-ha apple orc hard investigated the potential for male moth population suppression. The 0 .3-ha plots were placed in the center of 1-ha blocks separated by shelter b elts. The treatments, each replicated 6 rimes, were control, attracticide a pplied to plastic tape, and caged attracticide droplets. Caged droplets wer e covered with aluminum mesh to prevent moth contact with the droplet, but still to allow pheromone dispersion. Six delta traps, baited with attractic ide droplets and deployed in transects along the middle row of each plot, w ere checked before, during, and after the droplets were present. There was no significant difference among catches until attracticide droplets were ad ded. Upon treatment, suppression of trap catches (relative to the controls) increased at >50% per day for 4 d, to 96% suppression in the center and 88 % at the edge of the plots. Approximately half of this effect was caused by pheromone point-source competition estimated from suppression in plots wit h caged attracticide droplets. Zero catches were recorded on 75% of possibl e trapping occasions in the middle of the attracticide treatment while drop lets were present, compared with 17% in the control. Removal of the caged a ttracticide droplets led to an immediate increase in catch the next day in the center of the plots, to untreated control levels. In contrast, 85% supp ression was recorded on the Ist d after removal of the attracticide droplet s, showing the effect of moth mortality from the treatment. The potential f or attracticide control of this species of leafroller is promising. Further work is needed tea determine whether male suppression results in reduced m ating frequency and larval populations.