4.6 Article

Evaluation of Pheromone-Based Management Strategies for Dogwood Borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in Commercial Apple Orchards

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 102, 期 3, 页码 1085-1093

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/029.102.0329

关键词

dogwood borer; mass trapping; antagonist-based mating disruption; Sesiidae; apple

资金

  1. USDA-CSREES Southern Region IPM [2005-34103-15592]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dogwood borer, Synanthedon scitula (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae), is a serious wood-boring pest of apple in eastern North America. The recent identification of its sex pheromone and systematic documentation of the effect of a potent behavioral antagonist affords the opportunity to develop pheromone-based management strategies for this important pest. Here we evaluated the potential of pheromone-based mass trapping of males to reduce dogwood borer infestations and conducted preliminary evaluations of an antagonist-based pheromone blend for disruption of dogwood borer mate finding in commercial apple orchards in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. In the mass trapping study, treatments included a conventional trunk-drench application of chlorpyrifos, a low-density mass trapping regime of 5 traps/ha, a higher-density mass trapping regime of 20 traps/ha, and an untreated control. We removed large numbers of males from orchards at all locations, with 27,155, 8,418, and 7,281 removed from high-density trapping plots in North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, respectively, over 2 yr. After 2 yr under each of these treatment regimes, infestation in high- and low-density mass trapping plots was not reduced to the level of chlorpyrifostreated plots. An antagonist-based dispenser deployed at a rate of 250/ha effectively disrupted mate-finding by male dogwood borer. In plots with mating disruption dispensers, captures in pheromone-baited traps were virtually eliminated, and no males were captured in traps baited with virgin females.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据