Comparison of kairomone DA 2313 and pheromone lure trapping for codling moth with oviposition monitoring

Similar documents
Monitoring Methods for Codling Moth Dr. Jay Brunner, WSU TFREC, Wenatchee

Developing an Easily Used Bait Monitoring Method for Oriental Fruit Moth in Mating Disruption Orchards

Traps for Monitoring Apple Pests in Ohio

Prionus Mating Disruption and Trap Capture in Sweet Cherry 2011

Traps for Monitoring Apple Pests in Ohio

Navel orangeworm biology, monitoring, and management

Comparison of Two Yellow Sticky Traps for Capture of Western Cherry Fruit Fly (Rhagoletis indifferens) in Tart Cherry in Northern Utah 2015

PHENOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BROWN MARMORATED STINK BUGS IN CALIFORNIA PEAR ORCHARDS

A NEW ERADICATION STRATEGY FOR SMALL, REMOTE GYPSY MOTH INFESTATIONS

2.1 Developing Effective Monitoring Tools For Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

Mass trapping of the olive fly Bactrocera oleae By: Fathi Abd El Hadi 1, Reoven Birger 1 and Boaz Yuval 2

Advancements in Pest Management Monitoring for Food Processors

Phenology of Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs and Distribution near California Pear Orchards

Phenology of Brown Marmorated Stink Bugs and Distribution near California Pear Orchards. (Funding provided by the Pear Pest Management Research Fund)

Recent Trends in Organic Tree Fruit Production: 2001

PHENOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION OF BROWN MARMORATED STINK BUGS IN AND NEAR CALIFORNIA PEAR ORCHARDS

Address: 5230 Konnowac Pass Rd Address: Dept. Entomology, Barton Lab City: Wapato City: Geneva

GYPSY MOTH (LYMANTRIA DISPAR) TRAPPING & TREATMENTS IN MINNESOTA 2012 UPDATE

Lures to monitor and control vertebrates at low densities: sex pheromone attractants

Report of Progress 895

scaffolds I N S E C T S HOT SAWS F R U I T J O U R N A L Update on Pest Management and Crop Development September 7, 2010 VOLUME 19, No.

Annex 1 to ISPM No. 26 (ESTABLISHMENT OF PEST FREE AREAS FOR FRUIT FLIES (TEPHRITIDAE)) Fruit fly trapping (200-) Steward: Walther Enkerlin

Identifying Moths in Traps for Sweet Corn Pests

Response of Predaceous Checkered Beetles (Coleoptera: Cleridae) to Pheromone Components of Longhorned Beetles

Abstract J. ent. Soc. Ont. 143: JESO Volume 143, Optimization of synthetic pheromone blend for C. rosaceana

CULTURE Dr. Gary C. Pavlis, Ph.D. Atlantic County Agricultural Agent

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF PRAYS OLEAE (BERN.) BY CHRYSOPIDS IN TRAS OS-MONTES REGION (NORTHEASTERN PORTUGAL)

Response of Males of Maruca vitrata Fabricius(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) to. Synthetic Lures in Mauritius

Pest animal control. Guiding principles for community groups and landowners

TAKE A CHANCE PART 2

Golfers in Colorado: The Role of Golf in Recreational and Tourism Lifestyles and Expenditures

PERMIT TO ALLOW MINOR USE AND SUPPLY OF AN AGVET CHEMICAL PRODUCT

Cove Point Beach Restoration: Utilization of a Spawning Habitat by Horseshoe Crabs (Limulus polyphemus)

Presence and distribution of red flour beetles in a city neighborhood surrounding a grain-cleaning facility

Baiting European wasps: why bother? Merydyn Davison Insect Inquiries Officer Orange Agricultural Institute

Moths. Beetles. Other. Angoumois Grain Moth. Sitotroga cerealella European Grain Moth. Nemapogen granelius Indianmeal Moth

Moths. Beetles. Other. Multi-species. SQUEEZE & SNAP Trap. STORGARD Indoor Fly Trap. Khapra Beetle Wall Trap

Analysis of Variance. Copyright 2014 Pearson Education, Inc.

Sea Otter Survey of Adak Island

Chapter 2 Trap Function and Overview of the Trapping Process

QUALITY EVALUATIONS OF WALNUT VARIETIES IN SAN BENITO COUNTY 2004

Emerging Crash Trend Analysis. Mark Logan Department of Main Roads, Queensland. Patrick McShane Queensland Transport

Season-Long Patterns of Attraction of Brown Marmorated Stink Bug to Pheromone Lures and Light Traps in Orchard Agroecosystems

Attract and kill, an effective technique to manage apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella [Diptera : Tephritidae] in high density Quebec apple orchards

Preliminary analysis of yellowfin tuna catch, effort, size and tagging data using an integrated age-structured model

Comparison of Documents Norton: FWS-WDC. 1. What is the Porcupine caribou herd's historic calving range?

Commercial Dungeness Crab Newsletter

The Role of Olive Trees Distribution and Fruit Bearing in Olive Fruit Fly Infestation

West Coast Rock Lobster. Description of sector. History of the fishery: Catch history

2016 ANNUAL FISH TRAWL SURVEY REPORT

Relative Size Selectivity of Trap Nets for Eight Species of Fish'

Project No: R Visual Lures for Possums. Malcolm Thomas and Fraser Maddigan. Pest Control Research Ltd PO Box 7223 Christchurch New Zealand

1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey

Manual of Fisheries Survey Methods II: with periodic updates. Chapter 22: Guidelines for Sampling Warmwater Rivers with Rotenone

Two New Invasive Pests in Washington: Spotted Wing Drosophila and Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

SEISMIC SHUTOFF CHARACTERISTICS OF INTELLIGENT GAS METERS FOR INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS IN JAPAN

23- Year Sand Volume Changes at Site 132, 15th Street, Brigantine

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS ON WAVE OVERTOPPING OVER SMOOTH AND STEPPED GENTLE SLOPE SEAWALLS

Township of Muskoka Lakes Bear Hazard Assessment January 2006

BS EN :2003 Containment Factor deciphered

CHEETAH PROJECT Cheetah Conservation Fund. Interviewers name Date

Vertebrate Pest Management in Pistachio Orchards. Julie Finzel Livestock and Natural Resources Farm Advisor Kern, Tulare, and Kings Counties

Results of a Two-Year Pink Bollworm Survey in the Southern Plains of Texas and New Mexico

Determining the Effects of Temporal Period and Bait Types for Trapping Small Mammals. at Cooper Farm in Muncie, Indiana. An Honors Thesis (BIO 498)

LOWER MOKELUMNE RIVER UPSTREAM FISH MIGRATION MONITORING Conducted at Woodbridge Irrigation District Dam August 2014 through July 2015.

Los Angeles District 4 Data Analysis Report

2010 TRAVEL TIME REPORT

Proportion of adult steelhead passing Lower Granite Dam during nighttime noncounting

6 th Meeting of the Scientific Committee Puerto Varas, Chile, 9-14 September 2018

Effects of Bulb Degradation on Fly Attraction to Insect Light Traps

Capital Bikeshare 2011 Member Survey Executive Summary

Japanese Beetle in Oregon 2012

New developments in pest control and monitoring

SAFETY DATA SHEET. Webbing Clothes Moth Ring. Used for the attraction of insect pests Not applicable ;

2017, Richard F. Booker, Esq. PLO Analysis. Proposed Penn Ambulatory Care Facility

Electrofishing and kick seining efforts for invasive signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus) on Kodiak Island, Alaska

$ $ STREET

Some Biological Parameters of Bigeye and Yellowfin Tunas Distributed in Surrounding Waters of Taiwan

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Report to the International Pacific Halibut Commission on 2017 California Fisheries

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Payang Seine (Lampara) and Driftnet Fisheries in West Sumatra, Indonesia

THE FLYING CURVE OF TUTA ABSOLUTA (MEYRICK, 1917) IN EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION DURING THE YEAR

Green crabs: invaders in the Great Marsh Featured scientist: Alyssa Novak from the Center for Coastal Studies/Boston University

Effect of Trap Size on Efficiency of Yellow Sticky Traps for Sampling Western Corn Rootworm (Coleoptera:Chrysomelidae) Adults in Corn 1

Quarry Lakes Fisheries Report EBRPD Fisheries Department. Joe Sullivan Fisheries Resource Analyst Peter Alexander Fisheries Program Manager

SONAR ESTIMATION OF ADULT STEELHEAD: VARIOUS METHODS TO ACCOUNT FOR KELTS IN DETERMINING TOTAL ESCAPEMENT

686 & 690 Walnut Street, Moorpark, CA 93021

WOMEN IN THE NWT - SUMMARY

6 th Meeting of the Scientific Committee Puerto Varas, Chile, 9-14 September 2018

Egg+Nymphal Development with fitted model using Tlow=54F. Fitted to Tlow=50F

Figure 1. A) Sam Malan watches wasp choice test. B) Y-tube apparatus example.

Population Parameters and Their Estimation. Uses of Survey Results. Population Terms. Why Estimate Population Parameters? Population Estimation Terms

Livestock Concerns with Feral Hogs. Aaron Sumrall Newton Co. Extension Agent

Catch per unit effort of coastal prawn trammel net fishery in Izmir Bay, Aegean Sea

Field Evaluation of a Novel Lure for Trapping Seedcorn Maggot Adults

Lessons to be learnt from Mekong River for Asia

Section 1: Identification

Python Management in South Florida

Deer Management Unit 152

Non-fiction: Back from the Brink

The Life History of Triturus v. vittatus (Urodela) in Various Habitats

Transcription:

Thresholds and Monitoring Comparison of kairomone DA 2313 and pheromone lure trapping for codling moth with oviposition monitoring B. G. Zoller and A. M. Zoller The Pear Doctor, Inc., Kelseyville, CA Keywords: codling moth, Cydia pomonella, pear, oviposition monitoring, kairomone Abstract: A kairomone-based codling moth (CM) adult trapping system was paired with a pheromone-based male trapping system in 137 interior locations of 836 hectares of pear orchards utilizing mating disruption for control in 4 California north coast geographic areas. To monitor oviposition during June and July, 1.3 cutfruit/hectare/week were located in the trap locations; in perimeter locations of the same blocks there were 3.0 cutfruit/hectare/week. The ratio of DA capture to pheromone capture (by field age of the pheromone lure) suggested greater stability of the DA lure response compared with the pheromone lures in the highest population area. A comparison of the fraction of the season total ovae counted with the accumulated CM/trap at the time of oviposition detection showed that 92% of ovae were detected with 1 or more adults/da trap vs. 79% of ovae detected with 1 or more males/pheromone trap. However, 83% were detected with 4 or more accumulated DA captures vs. only 44% detected with 4 or more males/pheromone trap. The experiences indicated that DA action thresholds may be utilized at levels below detection of CM using pheromone traps; however, more frequent lure change could increase the sensitivity of the latter. Introduction Pheromone trap catch is shut down to very low levels in mating disrupted orchards, making the need for additional control difficult to ascertain. Oviposition detection in cutfruit clusters was compared with male catch in pheromone traps and adult catch in kairomone DA 2313 traps in mating disrupted orchards. Methods Pheromone traps, 1 gal. ice cream carton style (Agricultural Advisors, Inc., Live Oak, CA), were positioned in the center of blocks in the upper one-quarter of the tree canopy at 1 trap per 4 hectares. They utilized one 10 mg lure (IPM Technologies Inc., Portland, OR) in the early season at 0-203 degree-days (88/50F), a second 10 mg lure 5 weeks in the mid-season (May to middle June) at 203-714 degree-days, and a Megalure (Trécé, Inc., Salinas, CA) 5 weeks in the summer at 714-1557 degree-days. Paired kairomone traps (Pherocon IIC, Trécé, Inc.) were placed 5 trees distant from every other pheromone trap, in the upper one-quarter of the canopy on March 25-31. They utilized kairomone DA 2313 lures (Trécé, Inc) with one new lure change on May 31.

Cutfruit clusters were used to monitor oviposition. One fruit in a cluster of at least two was cut weekly, one week prior to examination for oviposition. Cutfruit clusters were observed weekly, beginning on June 3. The area of the cut surface increased with the weekly size of the fruit. Effort was made to maintain the cut area at a constant 15 to 20% of the total fruit surface. Block perimeter and interior cutfruit clusters were examined. Perimeter samples were usually located on the south and west windward edges at 3.0 cutfruit/hectare per week (11 to 12 per 10-acre block). Cutfruit interior samples were in the trap areas at 1.3 cutfruit/hectare/week (5-6 per trap area). All cutfruit clusters were located at eye level on the east sides of trees. Results and Discussion The ratio of DA capture to pheromone capture suggested greater stability of the DA lure response compared with pheromone lures. The earlier cool season pheromone 10x lure change seemed to be more consistent with age than the midseason 10x lure change in terms of relative attractiveness to CM compared with the DA lure. The Megalure (summer season) pheromone lures were consistent for 3 weeks in the Lake County district, then began to decline in relation to the DA lures in weeks 4 and 5 (Fig. 1). Results of Megalure pheromone trapping in the lower, more coastal Mendocino County orchards presented a more consistent response with 5 weeks age relative to DA trapping. However, low populations encountered in the early and midseason resulted in too many null readings to create ratio values for many weeks, making interpretation difficult for the 10x lure response (Fig. 2). DA traps outperformed pheromone traps in most orchards. However, pheromone catch in early June likely was understated because of 10x lure age. DA traps peaked as the 10x lure aged, then declined with installation of the Megalures. This suggested competition for males in the paired trap areas. Cutfruit tests began to outperform pheromone traps at the end of the season at 4 to 5 weeks Megalure age. However, there could be effects of population protandry as well as lure age involved. The summer DA lure was 7 weeks old in the last week of readings and could have been declining in effectiveness with development of fruit volatile substances (Figs. 3 and 4). In one geographic area representing 18 of 137 trap pairs the pheromone traps out-performed the DA traps most of the season in contrast to all other areas (Fig. 5). However, for all 137 trap pair areas, if only data of 1 to 2 week aged 10x pheromone lures are considered for April and May, DA traps caught 3.6 to 4.5 times as many moths as 10x pheromone traps. This was very similar to the June and July Megalure data for one to five weeks of field age in all areas. There were many cases where 4 or more moths had been caught in DA traps with no ovae detected using the cutfruit method. However, in 84% of cutfruit ova detections, 4 or more moths had been caught in DA traps prior to or concurrently at the 1.72 cutfruit/acre/week rate employed. Using the experiences with the pheromone traps, in only 44% of ova detections were 4 or moths accumulated per trap prior to the detection. In order to account for over 80% of detections, less than 1 or more moths per pheromone trap is the needed threshold. Using 1 moth caught in a pheromone trap as a spray threshold results in 21% of cutfruit ova detections not being controlled. (However, the aging studies suggest this might be improved using more frequent lure changes.) Using 3-4 accumulated moths in a DA trap as a spray threshold results in

16% of cutfruit ova detections not being controlled. Use of 1 moth in a DA trap as a spray threshold improves control to 8% of detected ovae not being covered (Fig. 6). Summary The ratio of DA capture to pheromone capture by field age of the pheromone lure suggested greater stability of the DA lure response compared with the pheromone lures. The experiences indicated that DA action thresholds may be utilized below detection of CM using pheromone traps; however, more frequent lure change could increase sensitivity of the pheromone traps.