| Literature DB >> 31877916 |
Zongxiu Luo1,2, Fida Hussain Magsi1,2, Zhaoqun Li1,2, Xiaoming Cai1,2, Lei Bian1,2, Yan Liu1,2, Zhaojun Xin1,2, Chunli Xiu1,2, Zongmao Chen1,2.
Abstract
Since the identification of the Ectropis grisescens sex pheromone, no effective control technology based on this pheromone has yet been developed and evaluated. In this study, pheromone proportion and dosage, sustained-release dispensers, and pheromone lure-matched traps were optimized. The mass trapping technology developed with the above optimized parameters was tested in a field trial. The results show that two compounds, (Z,Z,Z)-3,6,9-octadecatriene and (Z,Z)-3,9-cis-6,7-epoxy-octadecadiene, at a ratio of 30:70 and impregnated into rubber septa at 1 mg, were the most attractive to male moths. These compounds provided the best performance when combined with a sticky wing trap. Adult male moth monitoring data showed that there was a lower population density in the trapping plot compared with the control plot, and there was a clear difference during the peak adult occurrence of the first five insect generations in 2017. The effect of mass trapping on the larva population was investigated in 2018; the control efficiency reached 49.27% after trapping of one generation of adults and was further reduced to 67.16% after two successive adult moth generations, compared with the control plot. The results of the present study provide a scientific basis for the establishment of sex pheromone-based integrated pest management strategies.Entities:
Keywords: Ectropis grisescens; efficacy evaluation; mass trapping; parameter optimization
Year: 2019 PMID: 31877916 PMCID: PMC7023340 DOI: 10.3390/insects11010015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insects ISSN: 2075-4450 Impact factor: 2.769
Figure 1Mass spectrum and chemical structure of two sex pheromone compounds of Ectropis grisescens.
Figure 2Trap catches of Ectropis grisescens male moths with different sex pheromone ratios. Bars mean standard error. Different letters indicate significant difference (Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test, p < 0.05).
Figure 3Trap catches of Ectropis grisescens male moths with different sex pheromone dosage. Bars mean standard error. Different letters indicate significant difference (Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4Three kinds of sustained-release dispensers were tested in the field trapping. (A) isoprene septa; (B) silicone septa; (C) PVC capillary tubing.
Figure 5Effect of sex pheromone dispensers on catch of Ectropis grisescens male moths. Bars mean standard error. Different letters indicate significant difference (Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 6Four kinds of traps were tested in the field trapping. (A) bucket funnel trap; (B) sticky wing trap; (C) delta trap; (D) noctuid trap.
Figure 7Effect of trap design on catch of Ectropis grisescens male moths. Bars mean standard error. Different letters indicate significant difference (Tukey’s HSD test, p < 0.05).
Figure 8Mass trapping performance of sex pheromone lure of Ectropis grisescens.
Figure 9Assessment of larger plot sex pheromone mass trapping trials on population density of Ectropis grisescens adult male (25 April–31 October 2017). Difference between mass trapping and control plot was analyzed by Student’s t-test, * and ** indicating significant statistical differences between the two species at at p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively.
Figure 10Assessment of larger plot sex pheromone mass trapping trials on population density of Ectropis grisescens larva. (A) The number of larva in treated and control plots before mass trapping; (B) the number of larva in treated and control plots after trapping one generation of male moths; (C) the number of larva in treated and control plots after trapping two generations of male moths. Different between mass trapping and control plot were analyzed by Student’s t-test, ns means not significant, ** indicating significant statistical differences between the two species at p < 0.01.