| Literature DB >> 28922898 |
Tamara Babcock1, Regine Gries1, John Borden2, Luis Palmero1, Analía Mattiacci3, Maité Masciocchi3, Juan Corley3, Gerhard Gries1.
Abstract
The German yellowjacket, Vespula germanica F., and common yellowjacket, Vespula vulgaris L. (Hymenoptera: Vespidae), are pests of significant economic, environmental, and medical importance in many countries. There is a need for the development and improvement of attractive baits that can be deployed in traps to capture and kill these wasps in areas where they are a problem. Yellowjackets are known to feed on fermenting fruit, but this resource is seldom considered as a bait due to its ephemeral nature and its potential attractiveness to nontarget species. We analyzed the headspace volatiles of dried fruit and fruit powder baits with and without Brewer's yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and we field tested these baits for their attractiveness to yellowjackets in Argentina. The addition of yeast to dried fruit and fruit powder changed the volatile compositions, increasing the number of alcohols and acids and decreasing the number of aldehydes. Dried fruit and fruit powder baits on their own were hardly attractive to yellowjackets, but the addition of yeast improved their attractiveness by 9- to 50-fold and surpassed the attractiveness of a commercial heptyl butyrate-based wasp lure. We suggest that further research be done to test additional varieties and species of yeasts. A dried fruit or fruit powder bait in combination with yeast could become a useful tool in the management of yellowjackets.Entities:
Keywords: Brewer’s yeast; Saccharomyces; Vespula; fermenting fruit; trap bait
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28922898 PMCID: PMC5581402 DOI: 10.1093/jisesa/iex065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Insect Sci ISSN: 1536-2442 Impact factor: 1.857
Fig. 1.Total ion chromatograms of odorants originating from dried fruit baits with and without Brewer’s yeast. Numbers above or next to odorants (peaks) correspond to those listed in Table 1. BHT = butylated hydroxytoluene (an antioxidant in the solvent). Note particularly the increase in relative abundance of poorly chromatographing acids (numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; see Table 1) when yeast is present.
Fig. 2.Total ion chromatograms of odorants originating from fruit powder baits with and without Brewer’s yeast. Numbers above or next to odorants (peaks) correspond to those listed in Table 1. BHT = butylated hydroxytoluene (an antioxidant in the solvent). Note particularly the increase in relative abundance of poorly chromatographing acids (numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4; see Table 1) when yeast is present.
Compositions of headspace volatile blends emanating from teabags containing dried fruit and fruit powder, with and without Brewer’s yeast
| Compounds | No. | Dried fruit | Dried fruit + yeast | Fruit powder | Fruit powder + yeast |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Carboxylic acids | |||||
| Butyric acid | 1 | 5.3 | 1.8 | 3.9 | |
| Isobutyric acid | 2 | 12.8 | 7.2 | ||
| 2-Methyl butyric acid | 3 | 8.4 | 9.8 | ||
| 3-Methyl butyric acid | 4 | 1.0 | 17.1 | 14.4 | |
| Hexanoic acid | 5 | 5.0 | 1.3 | 0.9 | |
| Octanoic acid | 6 | 1.0 | 5.1 | 1.6 | |
| Nonanoic acid | 7 | 0.5 | |||
| Benzoic acid | 8 | 2.7 | 1.6 | ||
| Alcohols | |||||
| 2-Heptanol | 9 | 1.2 | 0.4 | ||
| Dodecyl alcohol | 10 | 66.7 | 30.2 | 25.5 | 8.8 |
| Linalool | 11 | 0.5 | |||
| Furfuryl alcohol | 12 | 5.6 | |||
| 2-Phenylethyl alcohol | 13 | 4.3 | 2.4 | ||
| Eugenol | 14 | 2.1 | 1.0 | ||
| Esters | |||||
| Butyl acetate | 15 | 4.1 | 1.2 | ||
| Isobutyl acetate | 16 | 6.6 | 3.7 | ||
| Isoamyl acetate | 17 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 12.4 | 17.7 |
| Ethyl butyrate | 18 | 7.5 | 4.1 | ||
| Butyl butyrate | 19 | 1.7 | 0.3 | ||
| Butyl isobutyrate | 20 | 1.5 | 0.8 | ||
| Ethyl hexanoate | 21 | 1.1 | 0.4 | ||
| Aldehydes | |||||
| Hexanal | 22 | 1.8 | 1.8 | ||
| ( | 23 | 3.9 | |||
| Heptanal | 24 | 0.8 | |||
| ( | 25 | 0.5 | |||
| Octanal | 26 | 1.7 | 1.3 | ||
| Nonanal | 27 | 7.6 | 3.8 | 3.4 | 1.6 |
| Cecanal | 28 | 3.5 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Undecanal | 29 | 0.8 | |||
| Furfural | 30 | 6.4 | |||
| Ketones | |||||
| Sulcatone | 31 | 0.3 | 0.7 | ||
| Geranyl acetone | 32 | 0.6 | |||
| 2-Undecanone | 33 | 0.9 | |||
| α-Ionone | 34 | 0.8 | |||
| β-Ionone | 35 | 0.8 | |||
| 4-Hydroxy-2,5- dimethyl-3-furanone | 36 | 8.6 | 5.8 | ||
| Others | |||||
| Hydrogen peroxide | 37 | 1.1 | |||
| Styrene | 38 | 1.0 | 6.7 | ||
The percentage of each volatile identified by GC-MS in a specific blend is shown. Numbers correspond with compounds identified in Figs. 1 and 2. Total percentages of all odorants may be less than 100% due to GC column bleed compounds and to several unknown odorants (all less than 2%).
Fig. 3.Mean numbers of V. vulgaris and V. germanica captured per trap in Experiment 1 (N = 12) that was run at a sheep and cattle farm near San Carlos de Bariloche (Argentina) and tested teabags containing dried fruit (DF) with and without Brewer’s yeast. Traps baited with a heptyl butyrate (HB)-based lure or filled with water were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Bars labeled with the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s honest significant difference test, P < 0.05).
Fig. 4.Mean numbers of V. vulgaris and V. germanica captured per trap in Experiment 2 (N = 8) that was run at an urban nature reserve near San Carlos de Bariloche (Argentina) and tested fruit powder teabags (FP) with and without Brewer’s yeast. Traps baited with a heptyl butyrate (HB)-based lure or filled with water were used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Bars labeled with the same letter are not significantly different (Tukey’s honest significant difference test, P < 0.05).