David M Suckling1,2,3,4, Lloyd D Stringer1,2,3,4, John M Kean3,5, Peter L Lo6, Vaughn Bell6, James Ts Walker6, Andrew M Twidle1,3,4, Alfredo Jiménez-Pérez7, Ashraf M El-Sayed1,3,4. 1. The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2. School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Better Border Biosecurity, New Zealand. 4. Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre, Bruce, ACT, Australia. 5. AgResearch Limited, Hamilton, New Zealand. 6. The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Hastings, New Zealand. 7. Centro de Desarrollo de Productos Bióticos, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, 62731, Yautepec, Morelos, Mexico.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The identification of new attractants can present opportunities for developing mass trapping, but standard screening methods are needed to expedite this. We have developed a simple approach based on quantifying trap interference in 4 × 4 trap arrays with different spacings. We discuss results from sex pheromones in Lepidoptera (light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana), Diptera (apple leaf curling midge, Dasineura mali) and Homoptera (citrophilous mealybug, Pseudococcus calceolariae), compared with a kairomone for New Zealand flower thrips (Thrips obscuratus). RESULTS: The ratio of catch in corner traps to catch in centre traps was 25:1 at 750 D. mali traps ha(-1) , and was still ∼5:1 at 16 traps ha(-1) , suggesting trap interference even at such low trap densities. Trap competition for sex pheromone lures at close spacing (<5 m) was evident in 16-trap arrays of P. calceolariae, but less so for E. postvittana. No trap competition was observed at 4 m spacings with the kairomone for T. obscuratus. CONCLUSIONS: The ratio of catch in traps in the corner and centre of a 16-trap array at different spacings offers a rapid preliminary assessment method for determining the potential for mass trapping. Additional knowledge of vital rates and dispersal is needed for predicting population suppression. Our approach should have value in mass trapping development.
BACKGROUND: The identification of new attractants can present opportunities for developing mass trapping, but standard screening methods are needed to expedite this. We have developed a simple approach based on quantifying trap interference in 4 × 4 trap arrays with different spacings. We discuss results from sex pheromones in Lepidoptera (light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana), Diptera (apple leaf curling midge, Dasineura mali) and Homoptera (citrophilous mealybug, Pseudococcus calceolariae), compared with a kairomone for New Zealand flower thrips (Thrips obscuratus). RESULTS: The ratio of catch in corner traps to catch in centre traps was 25:1 at 750 D. mali traps ha(-1) , and was still ∼5:1 at 16 traps ha(-1) , suggesting trap interference even at such low trap densities. Trap competition for sex pheromone lures at close spacing (<5 m) was evident in 16-trap arrays of P. calceolariae, but less so for E. postvittana. No trap competition was observed at 4 m spacings with the kairomone for T. obscuratus. CONCLUSIONS: The ratio of catch in traps in the corner and centre of a 16-trap array at different spacings offers a rapid preliminary assessment method for determining the potential for mass trapping. Additional knowledge of vital rates and dispersal is needed for predicting population suppression. Our approach should have value in mass trapping development.
Authors: Nicholas C Manoukis; Roger I Vargas; Lori Carvalho; Thomas Fezza; Shannon Wilson; Travis Collier; Todd E Shelly Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Lloyd D Stringer; Rajendra Soopaya; Ruth C Butler; Roger I Vargas; Steven K Souder; Andrew J Jessup; Bill Woods; Peter J Cook; David Maxwell Suckling Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Gordana Ðurović; Amani Alawamleh; Silvia Carlin; Giuseppe Maddalena; Raffaele Guzzon; Valerio Mazzoni; Daniel T Dalton; Vaughn M Walton; David M Suckling; Ruth C Butler; Sergio Angeli; Antonio De Cristofaro; Gianfranco Anfora Journal: Insects Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 2.769
Authors: David Maxwell Suckling; Mailee E Stanbury; Ox Lennon; Kate M Colhoun; Fabio Chinellato; Ashraf M El-Sayed Journal: Insects Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 2.769
Authors: Rik Clymans; Vincent Van Kerckvoorde; Tom Thys; Patrick De Clercq; Dany Bylemans; Tim Beliën Journal: Insects Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 2.769