| Literature DB >> 30959947 |
Abstract
Insect movement inside and outside grain bulks and processed products influences pest management decisions. Movement allows insects to find essential food resources, shelters (refuges), warmer and/or humid locations, mating and egg-laying sites, even when they are rare in fields, buildings, mills, warehouses, and inside grain masses. This review discussed the advantages and disadvantages of stored product insect movements, and the influence of insect mobility on some integrated pest management practices. Insect movement (1) results in clumped insect spatial distributions and thus makes large sample sizes necessary for monitoring; (2) makes trapping more efficient, but is influenced by many factors; (3) allows control methods to be effective, but requires pest management programs to be area-wide; (4) makes eradication of quarantine pests difficult and commodities are quickly re-infested; and (5) results in a diverse genetic pool and speeds the development of resistance to pesticides. Any element of an IPM approach should use the knowledge of insect movement. Reasons for the difficult interpretation of cryptic movement behaviours of insects were provided and future research areas were suggested.Entities:
Keywords: mobility; monitoring; movement behaviour; pest control; stored grain insect pests
Year: 2019 PMID: 30959947 PMCID: PMC6523121 DOI: 10.3390/insects10040100
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Mechanisms of insect control methods in respect of insect movement behaviours.
| Control Methods | Mechanisms | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Monitoring | ||
| Trapping at outside of grain bulks | Insects fly or move into traps with or without bait or pheromone | Use striped funnel trap, dome pitfall trap, flight trap |
| Trapping inside grain bulks | Insects move into traps without bait or pheromone | Use pitfall trap |
| Sampling grain bulks | Sample grains with moving or non-moving insects | Use probe, vacuum-probe, grain trier, sampler |
| Physical | ||
| Pheromone trap | Lure flying insects into traps and kill | Suppress moth population by using traps |
| Heat treatment, controlled atmosphere, microwave heating | Elevated temperature of the medium kills insects regardless of insect mobility. Insects might escape to cooler locations | Heat building to 60 °C, apply CO2, N2 and airtight the stored grain |
| Chemical | ||
| Contact pesticide or growth regulator | Insects moving through the grain mass contact/intake of the applied pesticides | Apply DE, methoprene cyfluthrin, pyrethrin, or malathion |
| Fumigation | Insects inhale toxic chemicals regardless of insect mobility | Use Aerotech with NyGuard or phosphine |
| Biological | ||
| Predator or parasitoid | Predators or parasitoids moving through grain mass prey or lives on/in insects | Wasp control insect pests as a predator or parasite |
| Biological agents | Moving insects contact/intake entomopathogenic fungi, bacteria, and/or the chemicals produced by the biological agent | Apply spinosad to the stored grain |
Different weather conditions reported when flying insects are captured.
| Insects a | Reported Different Flying Conditions | Sources |
|---|---|---|
| Peak flight from 15:00 to 17:00 pm at 5 to 45 °C on India fields | Rajan et al. [ | |
| In lab at 22 °C | Vasquez-castro et al. [ | |
|
| Year round on Australia fields at 6.6 °C mean minimum to 22.5 °C mean maximum temperatures | Daglish et al. [ |
| In lab at ≥ 22.5 °C and ≤ 45 °C | Cox et al. [ | |
|
| On India fields at 4.8 to 9.3 °C | Rajan et al. [ |
| Year round on Australia fields at mean minimum temperature 6.6 °C | Ridley et a. [ | |
| Year round on Arkansas fields at ≥ −6.7 °C. | McKay et al. [ | |
| On Kansas fields at ≥ 17.5 °C and ≤ 6 m/s wind speed | Toews et al. [ | |
| In lab at 19.9 to 41.6 °C | Dowdy 1994 [ | |
| In lab at 21.5 °C | Sinclair and Alder [ | |
| In lab at 16 °C | Wright and Morton [ | |
|
| In lab at 10 to 15 °C | McKay et al. [ |
| In lab at 22.5 °C | Fardisi and Mason 127 [ |
a More than 20 species of flying insects are captured on fields. Only the most studied insects are listed.
Relationship between trap capture and actual population density.
| Insects a | Relationship | Sources |
|---|---|---|
|
| Only 25 to 34% of variation of insect population can be explained by a liner regression equation | Vela-Coiffier et al. [ |
| An electronic trap can predict densities of the introduced insects inside grain bins | Jian et al. [ | |
|
| Captures are different at different temperatures and seasons | Wakefield and Cogan [ |
|
| Relationship is not strong | Toews et al. [ |
| Lower captures when food and shelter are present elsewhere | Vela-Coiffier et al. [ | |
| Few beetles are caught inside a milling machine | Hawkin et al. [ | |
| There is a strong correlation between insect density and actual trap captures | Buckman and Campbell [ | |
| Beetles are more likely to be trapped along walls than next to poles in a warehouse | Campbell and Hagstrum [ | |
| Trap locations, temperature, and flour dust accumulation significantly influence trap captures | Semeao et al. [ | |
| Field strains are caught 24% less than the laboratory strains | Hawkin et al. [ | |
| Mating status has a significant effect on the captures in aggregation pheromone traps | Malekpour et al. [ | |
| Response to pheromone/kairomone traps is strong when there is air movement, but not in still air | Campbell [ | |
| Mites | Only about 37% of the variation of insect population can be explained | Amoah et al. [ |
a Only a few species are listed.
Effect of short exposure intervals, low doses, mixing treatments, or partial treatments on efficacy.
| Pesticide | Insects | Treatment Method | Efficacy | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chlorpyriphos-methyl |
| Treated:untreated corn = 2:3 | Similar with 100% treated corn for the long-term control | Arthur [ |
| Deltamethrin | Mixing treated and untreated brown rice | Mortality of adults < 7%, progeny is reduced | Kavallieratos et al. [ | |
| S-methoprene |
| Mixing treated and untreated wheat | Progeny depends on both the average dose and evenness of application | Daglish and Nayak [ |
| Spinosad | Layer, top, or portion treatment of wheat | Species dependent, mortality is high if insects moved through the treated wheat | Athanassiou et al. [ | |
| Diatomaceous earth | Different doses and different temperatures of wheat | Insect mobility and species dependent | Fields and Korunic [ | |
| Methoprene |
| Wheat treated at 0.001 to 0.0165 ppm | Progeny is reduced at 1600–5000 times lower than the label dosage | Wijayaratne [ |
Relationship between elements of an integrated pest management (IPM) approach and required knowledge of insect movement.
| Elements of An IPM Approach | Required Knowledge of Insect Movement |
|---|---|
| (1) planning and managing storage ecosystems to prevent insect infestation | Movement ability of insects infesting the storage ecosystem |
| (2) identifying pests and understanding their biology and ecology | Their mobility related to their population dynamics |
| (3) monitoring populations of pests and storage environment | Relationship between mobility and the prediction of insect density and distribution |
| (4) making control decisions based on the information collected | Unknown movement might result in a wrong decision or the decision cannot be made |
| (5) reducing pest populations to acceptable levels | Movement will result in re-infestation and population fluctuation |
| (6) evaluating effect and efficacy of IPM decisions | Unknown movement might result in a wrong evaluation or the evaluation cannot be made |