Mating Disruption and Other Low Impact Alternative Approaches

I. General

• A. Mating Disruption defined: The release of a specific pheromone into the air of a cropping site in sufficiently high quantities to render the males unable to orient to natural sources of pheromone (i.e. females), causing them to fail to locate the calling females, thereby preventing reproduction.

 
• 1. Semiochemical defined: A chemical signal. Categories of semiochemicals:

 
          1. Hormones - within an individual organism

          2. Pheromones - between individuals of the same species

          3. Allelochemicals - between individuals of different species (note context effect)

               a. Kairomones - to the detriment of the emitter and benefit of the receiver (e.g. a scale pheromone used as cue by parasitoid)
               b. Allomones - to the benefit of the emitter and detriment of the receiver (a flower mimics the sex pheromone of a pollinating wasp, or a beetle mimicing the odor of a host ant colony)
               c. Synomone - to the benefit of both emitter and receiver

2. Mechanisms of mating disruption

 
• a. false trail following
• b. trail camoflage
• c. habituation/adaptation
• d. sensory imbalance

 
• 3. Status as a pesticide (EPA label required - e.g. Isomate C-TT, sprayable Suterra's Checkmate CM-F), Suterra's CM and OFM Puffers, Isomate PTB Dual, SPLAT GM, SPLAT with spinosad (oriental and melon fruit flies) Isomate GBM Plus (discont. in US; Canada only), Isomate GRB, Isomate DWB (dogwood borer), diamondback moth Checkmate DBM-F) (note formulations - impact on OMRI?)
  

 
• B. Advantages of Mating Disruption
 
• 1. Safety to applicator
• 2. No residues at harvest
• 3. Harmless to beneficial species
• 4. No secondary pest outbreaks
• 5. Applied less often than insecticides (situation changing?)
• 6. No specialized equipment needed (But sometimes helpful ... )
• 7. Resistance less likely
• 8. Slows or prevents pesticide resistance (e.g. New Zealand light brown apple moth)

 
• B. Disadvantages of Mating Disruption
 
• 1. Species specific
• 2. Need to monitor carefully
• 3. High cost of pheromone dispensers
• 4. Dispenser longevity critical
• 5. Failure likely with high populations
• 6. Uniform blocks recommended
• 7. Need large blocks
• 8. May need to place in tops of trees

 
• C. Pherolist, a glossary of lepidopteran sex attractants

 
• A. Oriental fruit moth
 
• 1. Life history

 
• 2. Twig injury

 
• 3. Fruit injury

 
• 4. Disruption
 
• a. trap captures
• b. fruit injury
• c. Recommendations (Virginia first state to incorporate mating disruption into recommendations in 1989)

 
• B. Lesser Peachtree Borer
 
• 1. Life history

 
• 2. Current control

 
• 3. Disruption
 
• a. Trap shutdown

 
• b. Pupal skin counts

 
• c. First available for recommendation in 2000

 
• A. Codling moth
 
• 1. Life history

 
• 2. Current control

 
• 3. Disruption
 
• a. Trap shutdown

 
• b. Fruit injury counts

 
• c. Recommendations

 
• 4. Internal feeder complex - add oriental fruit moth

 
• B. Leafrollers
 
• 1. Complex
 
• a. Tufted apple bud moth
• b. Variegated leafroller
• c. Redbanded leafroller
• d. Obliquebanded leafroller

 
• 2. Effects of VLR permeation on damage by:
 
• a. grouped leafroller complex

 
• b. Platynota versus RBL injury

 
• 3. Pheromone blends

 
• 4. Permeation with pheromone of TBM, VLR and Generic 2 - Effects on:
 
• a. Tufted apple bud moth
• b. Variegated leafroller
• c. Redbanded leafroller

 
• 5. Small plot work

 
• 6. Large plot work

 
• 7. Status of leafroller mating disruption?
• impact of selective insecticides?
• sprayable formulations? (Check ai with blends of local species)
  
 
• C. Dogwood borer
 
• 1. Life history

 
• 2. Current control

 
• 3. Initial disruption attempts
 
• a. Trap shutdown

 
• b. Pupal skin counts

• 4. Current Registration
  

 
• A. Grape berry moth
 
 
• 1. Biology

 
• 2. Disruption

 
• 3. Effect of vineyard surroundings

 
• 4. Effect of cultivar

• 5. Effect of sales on registration (US vs Canada)
  

• B. Grape root borer
  

• 1. Biology

• 2. Control options
  

• 3. Disruption

A. Use and limitations

B.  Role in Slowing the Spread:

A. Diamondback moth sprayable. (Status?)

B.  DBM and cabbage looper from same dispenser?

A. Indianmeal moth

0.1-1.0 mating pair / m² of wall, good results
1.0 mating pair / m² of wall, poor results

 
• A. Ropes
• (Pacific Biocontrol link to Isomate C-TT dispenser)
• CMOFMTT placement in tops of trees (A, B)
  
• B. Laminates
• C. Spirals
• D. Sprayable formulations
• E. Microsprayers, puffers, CM,
  

• A. Generalist predators
 
• 1. Ground beetles
 
• a. Biology

 
• b. Effect of disruption

• 	Pheromone	Insecticide Control
  No. individuals	1968	1205
  No. species	50	40

  
  

 
• 2. Spiders
 
• a. Spider biology

 
• b. Important spider families

 
• c. Disruption effects in ground cover - Lycosidae

• 	Daleville		Fincastle		Tyro
  	MD	Cont	MD	Cont	MD	Cont
  No. ind.	70	10	127	52	37	57
  No. spp.	23	6	26	11	8	12

  
  

 
• d. Disruption effects in canopy - Salticidae

• 	Daleville		Fincastle		Tyro
  	MD	Cont	MD	Cont	MD	Cont
  No. ind.	18	10	59	21	17	11
  No. spp.	8	5	17	11	11	6

• 
  
• 3.  Why not more consistent effect?
  

 
• B. Predators of aphids (Aphidophaga)
 
• 1. Important families
 
• a. Syrphidae

 
• b. Chrysopidae

 
• c. Cecidomyiidae

 
• d. Anthocoridae

 
• e. Coccinellidae

 
• 2. Effects of disruption programs

• 	Daleville		Tyro		Fred G		Fred S
  	MD	Cont	MD	Cont	MD	Cont	MD	Cont
  Total Preds	320	151	161	162	24	11	93	54

  
  

 
• C. Predators of mites
 
• Stethorus punctum

 
• Neoseiulus (Amblyseius) fallacis

 
• Zetzellia mali

 
• Minute pirate bugs

 
• Black hunter

 
• Predatory mirids

 
• D. Parasites

• Confirm (tebufenozide) Label and SDS
• Effect of tebufenozide on STLM parasites in trial
• Newer product - Intrepid (methoxyfenozide)
•     Label
•     SDS
• Note effect of MAC compounds on predators
• Not all IGRs equivalent (Esteem and Stethorus)
• spinosad (Entrust) - effect on parasitoids?
  
• Comment on Section 18 and MAC
  

• Hasten the transition to low risk approaches
• Program requirements:
• Basic Level
  
• Four complete sprays using two reduced risk pesticides of different resistance groups.
  
• $60/A
  
• Advanced Level
• At least two complete sprays using two reduced risk pesticides of different resistance groups,
• Use mating disruption to manage one or more documented pests.
• $115/A
  

 
• Dennehy, T. J., W. L. Roelofs, E. F. Taschenberg & T. N. Taft. 1990. Mating disruption for control of grape berry moth in New York vineyards, p. 223-240. In R. L. Ridgway, R. M. Silverstein & M. N. Inscoe (eds). Behavior-Modifying Chemnicals for Insect Managment: Applications of Pheromones and Other Attractants. Marcel Dekker, NY.
• Gronning, E. K.  1994.  Mating disruption in apple orchards: Dispenser release rates, generic blends and community impact.  M.S. thesis.  114 p.
• Gronning, E. K., D. M. Borchert, D. G. Pfeiffer, C. M. Felland, J. F. Walgenbach, L. A. Hull, and J. C. Killian. 2000. Effect of specific and generic pheromone blends on captures in pheromone traps by four leafroller species in mid-Atlantic apple orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 157-164.
• Gronning, E. K. and D. G. Pfeiffer. 2007.  Ground beetle assemblages in Virginia apple orchards receiving pheromone-based or conventional tortricid management programs. J. Entomol. Sci. 42: 501-516.
• Howell, J. F., A. L. Knight, T. R. Unruh, D. F. Brown, J. L. Krysan, C. R. Sell & P. A. Kirsch. 1992. Control of codling moth in apple and pear with sex pheromone-mediated mating disruption. J. Econ. Entomol. 918-925.
• Knowles, K. L.  1997. Impact of low-spray mating disruption programs on aphidophagous insect populations in Virginia apple orchards.  M.S. thesis.  100 p.
• Malone, S. M.  1996.  The influence of pheromone dispenser release rates, trap height and pheromone dispenser height on captures of leafrollers in apple orchards.  M.S. thesis. 70 p.
• Metzger, J. A.  2001.  Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman) (Acari: Phytoseiidae) as a potential biological control agent for spider mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) in Virginia vineyards. M.S. thesis. 77 p.
• Metzger, J. A. and D. G. Pfeiffer.  2002.  Topical toxicity of pesticides used in Virginia vineyards to the predatory mite, Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman).  J. Entomol. Sci. 37: 329-337.
• Pfeiffer, D. G. 2000. Selective insecticides. p. 131-144. In J. E. Rechcigl and N. A. Rechcigl (eds). Integrated Pest Management: Techniques for Environmental Protection. Lewis.
• Pfeiffer, D. G., W. Kaakeh, J. C. Killian M. W. Lachance, and P. Kirsch. 1993. Mating disruption to control damage by leafrollers in Virginia apple orchards. Entomol. Exp. Applic. 67: 47-56.
• Pfeiffer, D. G., W. Kaakeh, J. C. Killian, M. W. Lachance and P. Kirsch. 1993. Mating disruption for control of damage by codling moth in Virginia apple orchards. Entomol. Exp. Applic. 67: 57-64.
• Pfeiffer, D. G. and J. C. Killian. 1988. Disruption of olfactory communication in oriental fruit moth and lesser appleworm in a Virginia peach orchard. J. Agric. Entomol. 5: 235-239.
• Pfeiffer, D. G. and J. C. Killian. 1999. Dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) flight activity and an attempt to control damage in `Gala' apples using mating disruption. J. Entomol. Sci. 34: 210-218.
• Pfeiffer, D. G., J. C. Killian, E. G. Rajotte, L. A. Hull and J. W. Snow. 1991. Mating disruption for reduction of damage by lesser peachtree borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in Virginia and Pennsylvania peach orchards. J. Econ. Entomol. 84: 218-223.
• Trimble, R. M. 1995. Mating disruption for controlling the codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in organic apple production in southwestern Ontario. Can. Entomol. 127: 493-505.
• Trimble, R. M., D. J. Pree & P. M. Vickers. 1991. Potential of mating disruption using sex pheromone for controlling the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Niagara Peninsula, Ontario vineyards. Can. Entomol. 123: 451-460.