Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T20:18:30.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Identification of the sex pheromone of Cochylis arthuri (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

S.P. Foster*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, North Dakota State University, PO Box 5346, Fargo, North Dakota 58105-5346, United States of America
B.D. Morris
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, North Dakota State University, PO Box 5346, Fargo, North Dakota 58105-5346, United States of America
L.D. Charlet
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Station, Northern Crop Science Laboratory, PO Box 5677, Fargo, North Dakota 58105-5677, United States of America
T. Gross
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Station, Northern Crop Science Laboratory, PO Box 5677, Fargo, North Dakota 58105-5677, United States of America
S. Grugel
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture – Agriculture Research Station, Northern Crop Science Laboratory, PO Box 5677, Fargo, North Dakota 58105-5677, United States of America
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: stephen.foster@ndsu.nodak.edu).

Abstract

The sex pheromone of Cochylis arthuri Dang was identified as a 80:20 mixture of (Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate (Z11-14:OAc) and (E)-11-tetradecenyl acetate (E11-14:OAc). Cochylis arthuri is a congener of the banded sunflower moth, Cochylis hospes Walsingham, which is a major pest of sunflower, Helianthus spp. (Compositae), in the Great Plains region of North America. Both are found sympatrically on sunflower in this region, although C. arthuri appears to be less common. Field testing of various blends, in sticky traps, showed that a loading of 80 µg Z11-14:OAc and 20 µg E11-14:OAc on a red rubber septum gave the best catches. In field trials in sunflower plots, traps baited with either the C. hospes blend or the best blend tested for C. arthuri only caught significant numbers, relative to blank traps, of males of the respective species, suggesting that the sex pheromones of the two species are specific under those conditions. The identification of an attractive blend of the sex pheromone of C. arthuri will give researchers another tool to investigate the pest status of C. arthuri on sunflowers.

Résumé

La phéromone sexuelle de la Cochylis arthuri Dang est un mélange 80:20 d'acétate de (Z)-11-tétradécényle (Z11-14:OAc) et d'acétate de (E)-11- tétradécényle (E11-14:OAc). Cochylis arthuri est un congénère de la cochylis rayée du tournesol, Cochylis hospes Walsingham, un ravageur important de tournesol, Helianthus spp. (Compositae), dans la région des Grandes plaines d'Amérique du Nord. Les deux espèces cohabitent sur le tournesol de cette région, bien que C. arthuri semble beaucoup moins commune. L'essai de divers mélanges en nature, au moyen de pièges collants, montre qu'un chargement de 80 µg Z11-14:OAc et de 20 µg E11-14:OAc sur un septum en caoutchouc rouge produit les meilleures captures. Dans des essais sur le terrain dans des cultures de tournesols, les pièges appâtés avec le mélange de C. hospes ou le meilleur mélange de C. arthuri n'ont capturé en nombre significatif, par comparaison à des pièges témoins sans appât, que des mâles de leurs espèces respectives; cela permet de croire que les phéromones sexuelles des deux espèces sont spécifiques dans ces conditions. L'identification d'un mélange attractif de la phéromone sexuelle de C. arthuri donne aux chercheurs un outil supplémentaire pour établir le statut de ravageur de cet insecte sur le tournesol.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arn, H., Toth, M., Priesner, E. 2002. Pherolist. Available from www.aruba.nysaes.cornell.edu/pherolist/index.html [accessed on October 2002].Google Scholar
Arthur, A.P., Powell, Y.M. 1990. Description of the last-instar larva of Cochylis arthuri Dang (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae) and characters for separating it from last-instar larva of Cochylis hospes Walsingham. The Canadian Entomologist 122: 627–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, J.F. 1988. Laboratory rearing of the banded sunflower moth, Cochylis hospes (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 61: 350–2Google Scholar
Bjostad, L.B., Wolf, W.A., Roelofs, W.L. 1987. Pheromone biosynthesis in lepidopterans: desaturation and chain shortening. pp 77120in Prestwich, G.D., Blomquist, G.J. (Eds), Pheromone biochemistry. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Charlet, L.D. 2002. Insect damage in North and South Dakota sunflower fields in 2001: results from the National Sunflower Association crop survey. pp 12–9 in Proceedings of the 24th Annual Sunflower Research Workshop, Fargo, North Dakota, 17–18 January 2002. Fargo, North Dakota: National Sunflower AssociationGoogle Scholar
Charlet, L.D., Brewer, G.J., Franzmann, B.A. 1997. Sunflower insects. pp 183261in Schneiter, A.A. (Ed), Sunflower technology and production. Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of AgronomyGoogle Scholar
Dang, P.T. 1984. A new species of Cochylis Treitschke (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae) from Saskatchewan. The Canadian Entomologist 116: 254–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofs, W.L. 1984. Electroantennogram assays: rapid and convenient screening procedures for pheromones. pp 131–59 in Hummel, H.E., Miller, T.A. (Eds), Techniques in pheromone research. New York: SpringerVerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelofs, W.L., Brown, R.L. 1982. Pheromones and evolutionary relationships of Tortricidae. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 13: 395422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underhill, E.W., Arthur, A.P., Mason, P.G. 1986. Sex pheromone of the banded sunflower moth, Cochylis hospes (Lepidoptera: Cochylidae): identification and field trapping. Environmental Entomology 15: 1063–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar