DOI: 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.01047.x
Comparison of mating disruption and mass trapping
with Pyralidae and Sesiidae moths
Luís A.F. Teixeira*, James R. Miller, David L. Epstein & Larry J. Gut
Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, 202 CIPS, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
Accepted: 23 July 2010
Key words: American plum borer, peachtree borer, lesser peachtree borer, IPM, tree fruit, relative
dispenser activity, Lepidoptera, competitive attraction, Synanthedon exitiosa, Synanthedon pictipes,
Euzophera semifuneralis
Abstract
Mating disruption and mass trapping for control of lepidopteran pests use synthetic sex pheromone
to prevent males from finding and mating with females. Here, we identify the behavioral mechanism
underlying mating disruption and mass trapping of American plum borer, Euzophera semifuneralis
(Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), peachtree borer, Synanthedon exitiosa Say, and lesser peachtree
borer, Synanthedon pictipes (Groeten) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). In addition, we derive relative dispenser activity (Relative Da) from the competitive attraction equation to compare the disruptive activity of the devices used in mating disruption and mass trapping. Dispensers and traps were deployed
in replicated 0.14-ha cherry or peach plots with E. semifuneralis or the Synanthedon moths, respectively. Dispenser densities were 0, 10, 20, 59, 185, and 371 per ha, whereas trap densities were 0, 10,
20, 40, 79, and 158 per ha. Moth catch in a centrally placed, pheromone-baited monitoring trap in
each plot was used to evaluate the treatments. The profile of moth captures in mating disruption and
mass trapping with the three species indicates that competitive attraction is the behavioral mechanism responsible for trap disruption. Relative Da is 0.27, 0.23, and 0.53 with American plum borer,
peachtree borer, and lesser peachtree borer, respectively, which indicates that the traps are 1.9–4.4
times more effective in reducing moth catch than the dispensers. Relative Da can be used to compare
devices for pheromone-based behavioral manipulation of these and other species that are competitively attracted to artificial pheromone sources. When the same type of trap is employed for monitoring and mass trapping, Relative Da is the same as dispenser activity Da.
Introduction
Behavioral manipulations that take advantage of insect
chemical sensory systems for pest management, such as
mating disruption and mass trapping, are becoming more
prevalent because of the increasing commercial availability
of effective devices, and the public’s concern with the use
of chemical insecticides (Cardé & Minks, 1995; Gut et al.,
2004; Witzgall et al., 2008). Mating disruption consists of
deploying dispensers of synthetic sex pheromone in crop
areas to decrease the likelihood of a male finding a calling
female, thereby preventing the occurrence of mating and
egg fertilization. In most examples of mating disruption by
discrete point sources of pheromone, competitive attrac-
*Correspondence: E-mail: [email protected]
tion of males towards dispensers is the behavioral mechanism that best fits the profile of male catch in pheromonebaited monitoring traps as a function of dispenser density
(Miller et al., 2006a,b, 2010). Non-competitive behavioral
mechanisms include camouflage of the female plume (Bartell, 1982; Sanders, 1997), desensitization of males via
either sensory adaptation or habituation (Cardé & Minks,
1995), and sensory imbalance caused by interference
with the male’s ability to perceive the pheromone plume
(Sanders, 1997).
Mass trapping to target lepidopteran pests consists of
deploying traps baited with sex pheromone to attract and
catch males before they locate and mate with females
(El-Sayed et al., 2006). The behavioral mechanism underlying mass trapping of male moths is competitive attraction, as with most instances of mating disruption by
discrete point sources of pheromone, followed by the
2010 The Authors Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 137: 176–183, 2010
176
Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 2010 The Netherlands Entomological Society
Comparison of mating disruption and mass trapping
permanent removal of males caught in traps from the pool
of potential mates (Miller et al., 2010). The question of
whether mating disruption or mass trapping is more efficacious for insect control has been recently addressed in
studies using numerical simulations. Byers (2007) suggested that deploying traps can cause a greater reduction
in the proportion of females mating than the placement of
the same number of dispensers. The relative efficiency
of the dispensers available for each method, and the cost of
the trapping device should inform the choice (Yamanaka,
2007). Mass trapping should be more effective than mating
disruption unless non-competitive behavioral mechanisms are elicited by mating disruption (Yamanaka &
Liebhold, 2009). These studies suggest that knowledge of
the behavioral mechanisms underlying these pheromonebased control tactics, together with data on the relative
activity of dispensers and traps, is necessary to optimize
deployment rates and minimize the cost of control.
Peachtree borer, Synanthedon exitiosa Say, lesser peachtree borer, Synanthedon pictipes (Groeten) (Lepidoptera:
Sesiidae), and American plum borer, Euzophera semifuneralis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), are key indirect
pests of cherry and peach in the fruit-growing regions of
Eastern North America. Peachtree borer and lesser peachtree borer originally infested several species of wild cherries, and became pests of cultivated cherry and peach
crops when these were introduced into the geographic
range (Snow, 1990). The host range of American plum
borer includes wild plums and several other plants in at
least 15 families (Biddinger, 1989). The damage caused by
these species to fruit trees is similar in that all feed on the
phloem and vascular cambium. Peachtree borer larvae
feed in the lower trunk and roots, a habit that can cause
girdling of the stem and death of young trees. Lesser
peachtree borer tends to feed higher in the trunk and
limbs, favoring locations such as cankers, pruning
wounds, and mechanical harvest scars. American plum
borer infests shaker scars in tart cherry and pruning
wounds in peach. Along with stressing the tree and providing entryways for microbial diseases, borer feeding
weakens the trunk and limbs of the tree and can cause
them to break under the weight of the crop, decreasing
the productive life of orchard trees. This pest complex is
difficult to control with conventional insecticides because
of the sheltered feeding locations of the larvae and combined periods of activity extending from May through
September in Michigan, USA (Howitt, 1993). The development of pheromone-based behavioral manipulation
methods, such as mating disruption and mass trapping,
which are effective and environmentally sound, would
reduce tree damage and decrease the application of
broad-spectrum insecticides.
177
The pheromone of American plum borer is a mixture
consisting of the aldehydes (Z)-9-tetradecenal and (Z,E)9,12-tetradecadienal at a 1:2 ratio, and equal amounts of
the corresponding alcohols at the same ratio (Biddinger
et al., 1994). To date, there are no published reports of
mating disruption or mass trapping of American plum
borer, and no commercial pheromone dispensers are available. In contrast, the identification of (Z,Z)-3,13-octadecadienyl acetate as the pheromone of peachtree borer, and
(E,Z)-3,13-octadecadienyl acetate as that of lesser peachtree borer (Tumlinson et al., 1974) was followed by
attempts to effect mating disruption of these moths using
sources of synthetic pheromone (Mclaughlin et al., 1976;
Gentry et al., 1980; Snow et al., 1985; Snow, 1990; Pfeiffer
et al., 1991). In all these studies, male captures in monitoring traps were easily inhibited, but reductions in infestation
were inconsistent. Recently, commercially available polyethylene tube dispensers filled with (E,Z) and (Z,Z) isomers
were deployed in peach orchards in Michigan and nearly
totally inhibited male Synanthedon catch in monitoring
traps, but yielded no significant reduction in tree infestation (L Teixeira, unpubl.). Mass trapping has been used
against other Sesiid moths, such as the dogwood borer,
Synanthedon scitula (Harris), a pest of apple, but treatment
did not significantly reduce tree infestation (Leskey et al.,
2009). To date, no data are available on the behavioral
mechanism underlying mating disruption and mass trapping of American plum borer or the Synanthedon species.
The objectives of this study were: (1) to identify the
behavioral mechanism responsible for mating disruption
and mass trapping of the three borer species, and (2) to
determine the relative efficacy of the devices used in each
method. To address our second objective, we derived relative dispenser activity (Relative Da) as a comparative measurement. The term dispenser is used in the sense of
pheromone point source, such as a dispenser or a trap.
Dispenser activity (Da) was defined by Miller et al. (2010)
as measure of dispenser disruption in relation to that of a
monitoring trap. We define Relative Da as a measure of
one dispenser disruption in relation to that of another dispenser, both measured using a similar monitoring trap.
We use Relative Da to compare dispensers and traps in
field trials.
Materials and methods
Mating disruption
Mating disruption treatments targeting peachtree borer
and lesser peachtree borer consisted of Isomate LPTB
and Isomate PTB dispensers (Shin-Etsu Chemical Co.,
Tokyo, Japan). Isomate LPTB dispensers contained
31.1 mg of (E,Z) and 11.7 mg of (Z,Z) isomers. Isomate
178
Teixeira et al.
PTB dispensers contained 28.4 mg of (Z,Z). Isomate
LPTB dispensers were deployed from late May to early
September, while PTB dispensers were deployed from
late June to early September 2008. Mating disruption of
the two Synanthedon species was conducted in the same
plots. With American plum borer, red rubber septa loaded
with 1 mg of pheromone blend (Alpha Scents, Bridgeport,
NY, USA) were deployed from mid July to late September
2009. Dispensers for mating disruption of each species
were placed in 0.14-ha plots at the rate of 0, 10, 20, 59, 185,
and 371 dispensers per ha. Each plot in the set was buffered
by at least 30 m, and was located randomly within orchard
blocks that ranged in size from 1.6 to 2.4 ha. The sets were
replicated in four peach blocks for mating disruption of
the Synanthedon species, and five tart cherry blocks
for American plum borer. Peach blocks were located in
Coloma (429¢34.78¢¢N, 8618¢18.58¢¢W) and Ludington
(4353¢32.85¢¢N, 8623¢54.48¢¢W) in southwest and west
central Michigan, respectively, and were planted with several peach cultivars. Tart cherry blocks were planted with
the cultivar Montmorency and were located in Coloma in
southwest Michigan. Male moth flight was monitored
using an orange Pherocon VI large plastic delta trap baited
with a 1 mg commercial pheromone lure (Trécé, Adair,
OK, USA). The traps were placed centrally in each plot at a
height of 1.6 m above the ground. Male moths were
counted weekly and the sticky inserts were replaced when
necessary. The same lures were used for the duration of
each trial.
Mass trapping
Male moths were trapped using orange Pherocon VI large
plastic delta traps with sticky liners (Trécé). Because our
ultimate objective was to develop cost-effective pheromone-based methods, we used the same trap to capture
peachtree borer and lesser peachtree borer. Preliminary
research showed that it was necessary to load lures with
prohibitively large amounts of each species’ costly pure
pheromone to catch moths of both species with the same
trap. Therefore, we used an Isomate Dual commercial
pheromone dispenser (Pacific Biocontrol, Vancouver,
WA, USA) as a lure because it was much less expensive
and readily available. This dispenser is registered for mating disruption of the Synanthedon moths, and contains
33.3 mg of (E,Z) and of (Z,Z) isomer. Mass trapping of
both Synanthedon moths was conducted in the same plots.
Traps were deployed from mid July to early September
2009. The traps for American Plum borer were baited with
laboratory-made lures consisting of red rubber septa containing 1 mg of the same pheromone blend used in mating
disruption. Traps were deployed from mid July to late September 2009. Traps were placed in six 0.14-ha plots at the
rate of 0, 10, 20, 40, 79, and 158 traps per ha. Each plot in
the set was buffered by at least 26 m, and was located randomly within orchard blocks that ranged in size from 1.2
to 2.4 ha. The sets were replicated in three peach blocks
and five tart cherry blocks. Peach blocks were located in
Coloma in southwest Michigan, and were planted with
several cultivars. Tart cherry plots were located in Hart
(4337¢57.64¢¢N, 8623¢50.79¢¢W) in west central Michigan, and were planted with the cultivar Montmorency.
Male moth flight was monitored using a pheromone-baited orange large plastic delta trap, using the same methods
as in the mating disruption trials. From here on, all traps
deployed in the center of the plots are referred to as monitoring traps, while traps deployed to ensnare male moths
in the mass trapping method are referred to as moth
removal traps.
Data analysis
For each species and method, we calculated the mean and
standard error of the total number of male moths captured
in plots treated with the same number of point sources.
Monitoring trap inhibition was calculated as (1)average
plot catch ⁄ average control plot catch) · 100. Graphical
plots of catch vs. point source density, 1 ⁄ catch vs. point
source density (Miller–Gut plot), and catch vs. point
source density*catch (Miller–de Lame plot) were generated to determine the behavioral mechanism underlying
the pattern of moth captures with mating disruption and
mass trapping (Miller et al., 2006a).
Miller et al. (2010) defined dispenser activity, Da, as a
measure of dispenser disruption relative to that of a monitoring trap. Miller et al. (2006a,b) had previously defined
Da as the area over which a dispenser could reduce catch
by 1 ⁄ 2Cmax. Here, we adopt and expand the definition of
Miller et al. (2010) for use when comparing devices in field
trials. In this study, Relative Da is a measure of moth catch
disruption caused by one dispenser in relation to that
caused by another dispenser, both measured using a
similar monitoring trap (see Appendix S1 for notations
and derivation of Relative Da). Relative Da ¼ ðDf Dr Þ1 =
ðDf Dr Þ2 , where Df is dispenser findability and Dr is dispenser retentiveness. Relative Da is calculated as the ratio
of the absolute value of the slope divided by the y-intercept
of the Miller–de Lame weighted regression line (Miller
et al., 2006b) for each experiment, multiplied by the ratio
of catch in the control plots (CDd=0) in each experiment.
slope
y intercept 1 ðCDd¼0 Þ1
Relative Da ¼ :
ðCDd¼0 Þ2
slope
y intercept 2
Comparison of mating disruption and mass trapping
179
(Table 1). With mass trapping, moth catch decreased from
13.3 ± 8.6 per plot with 0 traps per ha to 0.3 ± 0.3 per plot
with 158 traps per ha. The corresponding trap inhibition
was 97.5%. Moth catch in the plot of catch vs. point source
density decreased fast as point source density increased
and became asymptotic with the x-axis at higher point
source density in mating disruption and mass trapping
(Figure 2A). The lines in the plot of 1 ⁄ catch vs. point
source density were generally linear with mass trapping,
but the trend was less evident for mating disruption (Figure 2B), and the same pattern was repeated in the plot of
catch vs. point source density*catch (Figure 2C). Despite
the imperfect fit to a linear pattern of the mating disruption data, the lines did not resemble patterns expected with
non-competitive mechanisms (Miller et al., 2006a),
indicating that competitive attraction is the responsible
behavioral mechanism. Relative Da indicates that traps
were 4.4 times more effective than dispensers in disrupting
monitoring trap catch (Table 2).
Lesser peachtree borer catch decreased from
40.8 ± 18.3 to 1.8 ± 1.2 moths per plot as dispensers
increased from 0 to 371 per ha with mating disruption,
and the corresponding trap inhibition was 95.7%
(Table 1). With mass trapping, moth catch decreased from
153.0 ± 26.3 to 10.7 ± 4.3 moths per plot as trap density
increased from 0 to 158 traps per ha. The corresponding
Results
Catch of male American plum borer decreased from
14.8 ± 7.5 (mean ± SEM) per plot with 0 dispensers per
ha to 0.0 ± 0.0 per plot with 371 dispensers per ha, resulting in 100% monitoring trap inhibition with mating disruption (Table 1). With mass trapping, moth catch
decreased from 21.3 ± 10.0 per plot with 0 traps per ha to
1.0 ± 0.7 per plot with 158 traps per ha, with corresponding trap inhibition of 95.3% (Table 1). In mating disruption and mass trapping, catch decreased rapidly and
became asymptotic with the x-axis as point source density
increased, in the plot of catch vs. point source density
(Figure 1A). The regression lines in the plot of 1 ⁄ catch vs.
point source density were generally linear (Figure 1B), as
were the lines in the plot of catch vs. point source density*catch (Figure 1C). Taken together, these results indicate that competitive attraction is the behavioral
mechanism underlying mating disruption and mass trapping of American plum borer. Relative Da indicates that
traps were 3.6 times more effective than dispensers in disrupting monitoring trap catch (Table 2).
Catch of male peachtree borer decreased from
14.3 ± 5.7 per plot with 0 dispensers per ha to 1.0 ± 0.6
per plot with 371 dispensers per ha with mating disruption, resulting in 93.0% monitoring trap inhibition
Table 1 Male moth catch (mean ± SEM) and trap inhibition measured with monitoring traps placed centrally in plots treated with varying
rates of dispensers and male removal traps, in mating disruption and mass trapping experiments with American plum borer, peachtree
borer, and lesser peachtree borer
Mating disruption
American plum borer
Peachtree borer
Lesser peachtree borer
Mass trapping
Dispensers
(ha)1)
Catch (moths
per plot)
% inhibition
Traps (ha)1)
Catch (moths
per plot)
% inhibition
0
10
20
59
185
371
0
10
20
59
185
371
0
10
20
59
185
371
14.8
6.4
6.2
4.0
1.4
0.0
14.3
8.0
3.8
0.8
1.8
1.0
40.8
24.3
20.5
8.8
0.8
1.8
–
56.8
58.1
73.0
90.5
100.0
–
43.9
73.7
94.7
87.7
93.0
–
40.5
49.7
78.5
98.2
95.7
0
10
20
40
79
158
0
10
20
40
79
158
0
10
20
40
79
158
21.3
7.0
3.5
2.3
1.0
1.0
13.3
4.7
2.7
0.7
0.0
0.3
153.0
59.0
54.3
23.7
11.7
10.7
–
67.1
83.5
89.4
95.3
95.3
–
65.0
80.0
95.0
100.0
97.5
–
61.4
64.5
84.5
92.4
93.0
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
7.5
3.7
2.5
1.6
0.6
0.0
5.7
1.6
1.7
0.5
1.4
0.6
18.3
11.0
11.2
3.2
0.5
1.2
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
10.0
5.7
2.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
8.6
2.2
1.8
0.3
0.0
0.3
26.3
26.5
6.6
7.2
5.5
4.3
180
Catch (moths plot–1)
A
Teixeira et al.
Table 2 Relative dispenser activity (Relative Da) comparing traps
and dispensers used in mass trapping and mating disruption
experiments with American plum borer, peachtree borer, and
lesser peachtree borer
American plum borer
25
Mating disruption
20
Mass trapping
15
Relative Da
10
Mating disruption ⁄
mass trapping
5
American plum borer
Peachtree borer
Lesser peachtree borer
0
B
1.4
1.2
pattern (Figure 3B). The lines in the plot of catch vs. point
source density*catch were also generally linear (Figure 3C). These results indicate that competitive attraction
is the behavioral mechanism that best explains the pattern
of lesser peachtree borer captures with mating disruption
and mass trapping. Relative Da indicates that traps were
1.9 times more effective than dispensers in disrupting
monitoring trap catch (Table 2).
y = 0.007x + 0.160
r2 = 0.77
1
1/Catch
0.27
0.23
0.53
0.8
0.6
y = 0.003x + 0.086
r2 = 0.99
0.4
0.2
0
0
100
200
300
400
Point source density (ha–1)
C
25
Catch
20
y = –0.193x + 20.67
r2 = 0.90
15
10
y = –0.049x + 13.34
r2 = 0.73
5
0
0
100
200
300
Point source density × catch
Figure 1 Plots of (A) male moth catch vs. point source density,
(B) 1 ⁄ catch vs. point source density, and (C) catch vs. point
source density*catch in mating disruption and mass trapping
experiments with American plum borer. Measures of variation
in catch are provided in Table 1.
decrease in moth catch was 93.0%. In the plot of catch vs.
source density, moth catch in mating disruption and mass
trapping decreased rapidly as point source density
increased, and became asymptotic with the x-axis at higher
density (Figure 3A). The lines in the plot of 1 ⁄ catch vs.
point source density were generally linear although one
point in the mating disruption line deviated from a linear
Discussion
The pattern of moth catch in mating disruption and mass
trapping experiments targeting American plum borer,
peachtree borer, and lesser peachtree borer was consistent
with the pattern expected when competitive attraction is
the causal behavioral mechanism. Competitive attraction
results in an initial fast decrease in the number of males
caught in monitoring traps with an asymptotic approach
to zero as trap density increases. In addition, plots of catch
vs. point source density, and of catch vs. point source density*catch result in linear relationships with positive and
negative slopes, respectively. Although the data in some of
the plots only partially fit a linear model, the plots did not
resemble the patterns found when the behavioral mechanism is non-competitive (Miller et al., 2006a). Therefore,
we conclude that competitive attraction is the behavioral
mechanism underlying the pattern of trap inhibition when
red rubber septa loaded with 1 mg of pheromone, Isomate
PTB dispensers, or LPTB dispensers are used for mating disruption of American plum borer, peachtree borer,
or lesser peachtree borer, respectively. Competitive attraction is also responsible for mass trapping of American
plum borer using large plastic delta traps baited with a red
rubber septum loaded with 1 mg of pheromone, and mass
trapping of peachtree borer and lesser peachtree borer
using traps baited with an Isomate Dual dispenser.
Competitive attraction theory provides a useful framework to compare the devices used in mating disruption
and mass trapping in terms of monitoring trap disrup-
Comparison of mating disruption and mass trapping
Peachtree borer
B
A
Mating disruption
Catch (moths plot–1)
Catch (moths plot–1)
A 160
120
Mass trapping
80
40
Mating disruption
12
Mass trapping
8
4
0
1.4
B 3.5
3
y = 0.002x + 0.116
r2 = 0.24
2.5
1/Catch
1
1/Catch
Lesser peachtree borer
16
0
1.2
181
0.8
0.6
y = 0.019x + 0.190
r2 = 0.84
2
1.5
1
0.4
y = 0.0006x + 0.014
r2 = 0.83
0.2
y = 0.002x + 0.359
r2 = 0.11
0.5
0
0
0
100
200
Point source density
300
0
400
100
200
300
400
Point source density (ha–1)
(ha–1)
C 160
C 16
14
12
10
Catch
Catch
120
y = –0.104x + 145.85
r2 = 0.84
80
y = –0.056x + 39.99
r2 = 0.89
40
8
6
y = –0.039x + 12.19
r2 = 0.51
4
2
0
y = –0.201x+13.19
r2 = 0.84
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Point source density x catch
0
100
200
300
400
Point source density × catch
Figure 2 Plots of (A) male moth catch vs. point source density,
(B) 1 ⁄ catch vs. point source density, and (C) catch vs. point
source density*catch in mating disruption and mass trapping
experiments with peachtree borer. Measures of variation in
catch are provided in Table 1.
Figure 3 Plots of (A) male moth catch vs. point source density,
(B) 1 ⁄ catch vs. point source density, and (C) catch vs. point
source density*catch in mating disruption and mass trapping
experiments with lesser peachtree borer. Measures of variation
in catch are provided in Table 1.
tion. The Relative Da comparing dispensers in mating
disruption, and moth removal traps in mass trapping, varied between 0.23 with peachtree borer and 0.53 with lesser
peachtree borer, indicating that traps were 4.4 more effective than dispensers in disrupting capture of peachtree
borer, and 1.9 times more effective in disrupting lesser
peachtree borer. A comparable Da of 0.2 to 0.25 was determined for Isomate dispensers in relation to traps baited
with pheromone lures, in large field cages stocked with
known numbers of male codling moth, Cydia pomonella L.
(Miller et al., 2010). These values indicate a similar effect
of male removal on monitoring trap inhibition with
American plum borer, peachtree borer, lesser peachtree
borer, and codling moth.
The derivation of Relative Da for use in this study suggests a method for calculating Da in field trials. Miller et al.
182
Teixeira et al.
(2010) calculated Da using field cages that allowed determining the findability and efficiency of the monitoring
trap. In the special case when the same type of trap is used
for monitoring and for mass trapping, Relative Da is the
same as Da. In this manner, the Da value for any dispenser
can be obtained in field trials consisting of plots treated
with varying densities of dispensers and monitoring traps.
Peach and cherry orchards in Michigan are usually
infested with both peachtree borer and lesser peachtree
borer. For this reason, we investigated methods for simultaneous control of the two species, and conducted experiments with the two species within the same plots. A major
difficulty in targeting both species is that the presence in
the pheromone blend of one species’ pheromone isomer
inhibits the response of the other species (Tumlinson
et al., 1974). However, this obstacle can be overcome to
some degree by using a high release rate of pheromone.
We consider that the high Relative Da of 0.53 obtained
when comparing mating disruption and mass trapping of
lesser peachtree borer resulted from using traps that were
baited with the Dual dispenser. In a distinct experiment,
traps baited with a Dual dispenser captured approximately the same number of lesser peachtree borer as traps
baited with a standard lure, but traps baited with a Dual
dispenser captured ca. 50% fewer moths than traps baited
with the LPTB dispenser (L Teixeira, unpubl.). However, using the Dual dispenser allowed trapping lesser
peachtree borer and peachtree borer using the same trap,
which is the only economically viable strategy for wide
adoption of mass trapping for control of borers by fruit
growers in Michigan. Another instance where the need to
target both sesiid species, and the sensitivity of each species
to the other species’ pheromone may have affected our
results was mating disruption of peachtree borer. Peachtree borer and lesser peachtree borer were targeted in the
same plot with distinct dispensers because Snow (1990)
recorded the highest trap disruption levels when using specific dispensers against each species. The isomeric blend in
the Isomate LPTB dispenser, targeted primarily against
lesser peachtree borer, contains 73.1 and 26.9% of the
(E,Z) and (Z,Z) isomers, and the dispenser is also registered for use against peachtree borer, although at higher
deployment density. Therefore, LPTB dispensers placed
in the same plots as PTB dispensers may have contributed to mating disruption of peachtree borer. If this was
the case, then the Relative Da of 0.23 conservatively estimated the performance of the traps against peachtree
borer.
Our results suggest that mass trapping may be an efficacious pheromone-based behavioral manipulation method
for management of wood-boring pests in cherry and peach
orchards. Mass trapping devices potentially require less
pheromone than mating disruption, but savings are off-set
by the cost of the trap. Development of effective, inexpensive, easy to deploy, and biodegradable traps can reduce
costs associated with mass trapping. In addition, the development of a trap and bait system that could target several
pest species simultaneously would decrease the costs associated with deploying multiple sets of traps. We are currently evaluating mass trapping targeting the three borer
species with a single trap. Large-scale trials should include
a measure of tree infestation in addition to monitoring
trap inhibition to fully determine the efficacy of mass
trapping.
Acknowledgements
We thank Juan Huang for helpful comments on the derivation of Relative Da, Chris Adams, Peter McGhee, Mike
Reinke, and Piera Siegert for improvements on an earlier
version the manuscript, and Julia Jones, Matthew Julian,
Jessica Rasch, Leah Rasch, and Sarah Ward from Michigan State University for technical assistance. We gratefully acknowledge the peach and cherry growers who
provided access to their orchards for this research. This
work was funded in part by grants from EPA-American
Farmland Trust, Project GREEEN, and Pacific Biocontrol.
References
Bartell RJ (1982) Mechanisms of communication disruption by
pheromone in control of Lepidoptera: a review. Physiological
Entomology 7: 353–364.
Biddinger DJ (1989) The Biology and Control of the American
Plum Borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Tart Cherries in
Michigan. MSc Thesis, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI, USA.
Biddinger DJ, Roelofs W & Howitt AJ (1994) The development
of a sex pheromone lure of the American plum borer, Euzophera semifuneralis (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), a major
pest of cherries in Michigan. Great Lakes Entomologist 26:
311–317.
Byers JA (2007) Simulation of mating disruption and mass trapping with competitive attraction and camouflage. Environmental Entomology 36: 1328–1338.
Cardé RT & Minks AK (1995) Control of moth pests by mating
disruption: successes and constraints. Annual Review of Entomology 40: 559–585.
El-Sayed AM, Suckling DM, Wearing CH & Byers JA (2006)
Potential of mass trapping for long-term pest management
and eradication of invasive species. Journal of Economic Entomology 99: 1550–1564.
Gentry CR, Bierl-Leonhardt BA, Mclaughlin JR & Plimmer JR
(1980) Air permeation tests with (Z,Z)-3,13-octadecadien-1-ol
acetate for reduction in trap catch of peachtree and lesser
Comparison of mating disruption and mass trapping
peachtree borer moths. Journal of Chemical Ecology 7: 575–
582.
Gut LJ, Stelinski LL, Thomson DR & Miller JR (2004) Behaviormodifying chemicals: prospects and constraints in IPM.
Integrated Pest Management-Potential, Constraints, and
Challenges (ed. by O Koul, GS Dhaliwal & G Cuperus), pp.
73–121. CABI, New York, NY, USA.
Howitt A (1993) Common Tree Fruit Pests. North Central
Region Extension Publication #63. Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, USA.
Leskey TC, Bergh JC, Walgenbach JF & Zhang A (2009) Evaluation of pheromone-based management strategies for dogwood
borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in commercial apple orchards.
Journal of Economic Entomology 102: 1085–1093.
Mclaughlin J, Doolittle R, Gentry C, Mitchell E & Tumlinson J
(1976) Response to pheromone traps and disruption of pheromone communication in the lesser peachtree borer and the
peachtree borer. Journal of Chemical Ecology 2: 73–81.
Miller JR, Gut LJ, De Lame FM & Stelinski LL (2006a) Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point
sources of sex pheromone (part 1): theory. Journal of Chemical
Ecology 32: 2089–2114.
Miller JR, Gut LJ, De Lame FM & Stelinski LL (2006b) Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point
sources of sex pheromone (part 2): case studies. Journal of
Chemical Ecology 32: 2115–2143.
Miller JR, Mcghee PS, Siegert PY, Adams CG, Huang J et al.
(2010) General principles of attraction and competitive attraction as revealed by large-cage studies of moths responding
to sex pheromone. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA 107: 22–27.
Pfeiffer DG, Killian JC, Rajotte EG, Hull LA & Snow JW (1991)
Mating disruption for reduction of damage by lesser peachtree
borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in Virginia and Pennsylvania
peach orchards. Journal of Economic Entomology 84: 218–
223.
Sanders CJ (1997) Mechanisms of mating disruption in moths.
Insect Pheromone Research: New Directions (ed. by RT Cardé
183
& AK Minks), pp. 333–346. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY,
USA.
Snow JW (1990) Peachtree borer and lesser peachtree borer control in the United States. Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for
Insect Management (ed. by RL Ridgway, RM Silverstein &
MN Inscoe), pp. 241–253. Marcel Dekker, New York, NY,
USA.
Snow JW, Gentry CR & Novak M (1985) Behavior and control of
the peachtree borer and lesser pechtree borer (Lepidoptera:
Sesiidae) in peach orchards permeated with (Z,Z)-3,13- octadecadien-1-ol acetate. Journal of Economic Entomology 78:
190–196.
Tumlinson JH, Yonce CE, Doolittle RE, Heath RR, Gentry CR &
Mitchell ER (1974) Sex pheromones and reproductive isolation of the lesser peachtree borer and peachtree borer. Science
185: 614–616.
Witzgall P, Stelinski L, Gut L & Thomson D (2008) Codling moth
management and chemical ecology. Annual Review of Entomology 53: 503–522.
Yamanaka T (2007) Mating disruption or mass trapping?
Numerical simulation analysis of a control strategy for lepidopteran pests. Population Ecology 49: 75–86.
Yamanaka T & Liebhold AM (2009) Spatially implicit approaches
to understanding the manipulation of mating success for insect
invasion management. Population Ecology 51: 427–444.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
online version of this article:
Appendix S1 Derivation of relative dispenser activity
(Relative Da).
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell are not responsible for the
content or functionality of any supporting materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing
material) should be directed to the corresponding author
for the article.