4.4 Article

Monitoring codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in apple with blends of ethyl (E, Z)-2,4-decadienoate and codlemone

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 34, 期 3, 页码 598-603

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-34.3.598

关键词

Cydia pomonella; apple; pear ester; monitoring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies evaluated blends of the pear-derived kairomone ethyl (E, Z)-2,4-decadienoate and codlemone, loaded in gray halobutyl septa, as attractants for adult codling moth, Cydia pomonella L. Studies were conducted in apple orchards, Mahus domestica Borkhausen, treated with or without sex pheromone dispensers for mating disruption (MD). Septa were loaded with either one or both compounds at rates of 0.0, 0.3, and 3.0 mg pear ester and 0.0 and 3.0 mg codlemone in the first series of tests. Traps baited with a 3.0/3.0-mg blend caught significantly more males and total number of codling moths than traps baited with either compound alone in both types of orchards. Traps baited with two lures loaded individually with pear ester (3.0 mg) and codlemone (3.0 mg) caught significantly fewer males and total moths than traps baited with the dual lure (3.0/3.0 mg). The addition of 3.0 mg codlemone to pear ester did not significantly affect the capture of female moths. However, increasing the loading of pear ester from 0.3 to 3.0 mg in the dual lure significantly increased female moth catch in the untreated orchard but not in the sex pheromone MD orchard. increasing the loading of pear ester to 20.0 mg in a dual lure with 3.0 mg codlemone significantly increased total codling moth catch compared with a 3.0 mg codlemone lure, but female catch was significantly lower compared with traps baited with a 3.0 mg pear ester lure. Adding a 3.0 mg pear ester lure to traps baited with a 42.0 mg sex pheromone lure significantly reduced male moth catch compared with the sex pheromone lure alone but did not reduce the catch of female moths compared with traps baited with a 3.0 mg pear ester lure alone.

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

4.4
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