Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T10:00:57.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Shin-Etsu twist-tie rope dispensers by the mating table technique for disrupting mating of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

M Kehat ,
L Anshelevich ,
D Gordon ,
M Harel  and
E Dunkelblum
M Kehat
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
L Anshelevich
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
D Gordon
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
M Harel
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
E Dunkelblum*
Affiliation:
Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
*
* Fax: 972 3 968 3647 E-mail: vpezrad@volcani.agri.gov.il
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Different Shin-Etsu twist-tie rope formulations, containing either the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) pheromone or pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) pheromone, or both, in the same rope, were tested in Israel for mating disruption. The success of mating disruption was evaluated by the mating table technique, comparing the percentage of mating of virgin sentinel females in pheromone-treated and control plots. Two variants of this technique were evaluated, one with two mating tables per plot, each containing five to seven females, and the other with six to eight mating tables per plot, with only one female per table. The latter method was more sensitive than the former, particularly at low population densities. Two tests were conducted in 1995 in order to compare a blend of five components of H. armigera pheromone with a blend of two components for mating disruption. The application consisted of 2000 ropes/ha, each with 80 mg pheromone. Evaluation by the two mating table methods showed clearly that the formulation containing two components was superior to the five-component blend for mating disruption, suppressing mating almost completely for 49 days. A new combined formulation, HPROPE, containing 175 mg of the H. armigera two component blend and 65 mg of P. gossypiella pheromone was tested in 1996 for mating disruption of both pests. Application of 625 ropes/ha caused a high level of suppression of mating of H. armigera females for at least 94 days and that of P. gossypiella females for 161 days. The pheromone release rates were c. 625 mg/day/ha for H. armigera and 162 mg/day/ha for P. gossypiella. A ‘long-life’ formulation of P. gossypiella pheromone, PBW rope LR, applied at 125 ropes/ha releasing 137 mg/day/ha achieved complete suppression of mating over 75 days. This release rate of P. gossypiella pheromone was much lower than that currently used in Israel (275 mg/day/ha). The present study indicates that mating of females of two moth pests with different pheromones can be disrupted by one combined formulation.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , April 1998 , pp. 141 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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

Cardé, R.T. & Minks, A.K. (1995) Control of moth pests by mating disruption: Successes and constraints. Annual Review of Entomology 40, 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Critchley, B.R., Chamberlain, D.J., Campion, D.G., Attique, M.R., Ali, M. & Ghaffar, A. (1991) Integrated use of pink bollworm pheromone formulations and selected conventional insecticides for the control of the cotton complex in Pakistan. Bulletin of Entomological Research 81, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deland, J.P., Judd, G.J.R. & Roitberg, B.D. (1994) Disruption of pheromone communication in three sympatric leafroller (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) pests of apple in British Columbia. Environmental Entomology 23, 1084–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunkelblum, E., Gothilf, S. & Kehat, M. (1980) Identification of the sex pheromone of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera, in Israel. Phytoparasitica 8, 209–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Deeb, Y.A., El Hamaky, M.A. & Moawad, G.M. (1993) Large scale use of pink bollworm sex pheromone formulations integrated with conventional insecticides for the control of cotton pests in Egypt. International Organization for Biological Control, West Region Section Bulletin 16, 213–219.Google Scholar
Flint, H.M., Merkle, J.R. & Yamamoto, A. (1985) Pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae): Field testing a new polyethylene tube dispenser for gossyplure. Journal of Economic Entomology 78, 1431–1436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gothilf, S., Kehat, M., Jacobson, M. & Galun, R. (1978a) Screening pheromone analogues by EAG technique for biological activity on males of Earias insulana, Heliothis armigera and Spodoptera littoralis. Environmental Entomology 7, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gothilf, S., Kehat, M., Jacobson, M. & Galun, R. (1978b) Sex attractants for male Heliothis armigera (Hbn). Experientia 34, 853–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, H.E., Gaston, L.K., Shorey, H.H., Kaae, R.S., Byrne, K.J. & Silverstein, R.J. (1973) Clarification of the chemical status of the pink bollworm sex pheromone. Science 81, 873–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehat, M. & Dunkelblum, E. (1990) Behavioral responses of male Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) moths in a flight tunnel to combinations of components identified from female sex pheromone glands. Journal of Insect Behavior 3, 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehat, M., Gothilf, S., Dunkelblum, E. & Greenberg, S. (1980) Field evaluation of female sex pheromone components of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 27, 188–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehat, M., Gothilf, S., Dunkelblum, E. & Greenberg, S. (1982) Sex pheromone traps as a means of improving control programs of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environmental Entomology 11, 727–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minks, A.K. & Carde, R.T. (1988) Disruption of pheromone communication in moths: is the natural blend really most efficacious. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 49, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, E.R., Kehat, M., Tingle, F.C. & McLaughlin, J.R. (1997) Suppression of mating of beet armyworm (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) in cotton with pheromone. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 14, 17–28.Google Scholar
Nakache, J., Dunkelblum, E., Kehat, M., Anshelewich, L. & Harel, M. (1992) Mating disruption of the spiny bollworm, Earias insulana (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), with Shin Etsutwist-tie ropes in Israel. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesbitt, B.F., Beevor, P.S., Hall, D.R. & Lester, R. (1979) Female sex pheromone components of the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera. Journal of Insect Physiology 5, 535–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesbitt, B.F., Beevor, P.S., Hall, D.R. & Lester, R. (1980) (Z)-9-Hexadecenal: a minor component of the female sex pheromone of Heliothis armigera. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 27, 306–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccardi, P., Capizzi, A., Cassani, G., Spinelli, P., Arsura, E. & Massarado, P. (1977) A sex pheromone component of the Old World bollworm, Heliothis armigera. Journal of Insect Physiology 23, 1443–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, G.H.L. (1978) Attractants for Heliothis armigera and H. punctigera. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 17, 389–390.Google Scholar
Staten, R.T., Flint, H.M., Weddle, R.C., Hernandes, E. & Yamamoto, A. (1987) Pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae): large-scale field trials with a high-rate gossyplure formulation. Journal of Economic Entomology 80, 1267–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. & Torrie, J.H. (1960) Principles and procedures of statistics. New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar