Download PDF

FINAL REPORT

Title: Development of Feeding Atttractants as Monitoring Lures for moth pests of apple.

PI: Peter J. Landolt, USDA-ARS, Wapato, WA

Co-PI(s): Jay Brunner and Mike Doerr, WSU, TFREC, Wenatchee

Objectives:

2001 Objectives

1. Use feeding attractant to monitor Lacanobia, Pandemis leafroller and codling moth

through season.

2. Compare feeding attractant to pheromone lures for monitoring.

3. Relate moth capture to egg hatch and to larval densities.

4. Pursue improvements in feeding attractant lures.

Significant Findings:

1. A controlled release system was developed for the feeding attractants that include acetic

acid and 3-methyl-1-butanol.

2. A dry trap (Universal Moth Trap) was found to be superior in capturing Lacanobia moths

attracted to the feeding attractant.

3. A dry trap (large Delta) was found to be superior in capturing Pandemis leafroller moths

attracted to the feeding attractant.

4. Most female Lacanobia moths are captured before they have laid many or none of their

eggs.

5. A preliminary assessment of the data indicates that Lacanobia and Pandemis captures in

feeding attractant traps correlate better with larval numbers that do captures in pheromone

traps.

6. Best placement of traps baited with feeding attractant for Lacanobia is in the upper tree

canopy.

7. In all tests, results for spotted cutworm and bertha armyworm were quite similar to results

obtained for Lacanobia.

Methods:

Gravimetric (weight loss) studies were done on a series of polypropylene vial sizes, and with

a range of vial lid hole diameters to determine release rates of acetic acid and 3-methyl-1-butanol

from vial dispensers.

A long series of trapping experiments were conducted, using the feeding attractant dispensed

from vials to evaluate trap designs, trap placement, vial hole diameters, lure component release rates,

lure release rates, and additional fermentation chemicals.

Blocks of 3 to 5 acres of apples were monitored from April to October for Pandemis

leafroller, Lacanobia fruitworm and codling moth. Monitoring was with sex pheromone traps and

feeding attractant traps, with all traps checked twice per week. During both generations, plots were

sampled for leafroller and Lacanobia larvae, and apple fruit infested with codling moth larvae.

Leafroller larvae were sampled by visual searching for damage and for rolled leaves. Lacanobia

larvae were sampled by limb knocking of larvae onto a sheet on the ground. Codling moth sampling

was done by visual searching of apple fruit.

Results and Discussion:

Lure and Trap Optmization

An optimum feeding attractant monitoring system for Lacanobia fruitworm was developed.

The recommended lure is a pair of 8 ml polypropylene vials, each with a hole in the lid of each that is

3 mm in diameter. One vial possesses 5 ml of acetic acid on cotton, the other vial possesses 5 ml of 3-

methyl-1-butanol on cotton. The vials are suspended right-side-up in the bucket of a Universal Moth

Trap with a piece of Vaportape to kill captured moths. Traps can be all green or multi-colored

Universal Moth Traps, but should be placed in the upper canopy of orchard trees to capture maximum

numbers of Lacanobia moths. A commercial prototypeof the lure has been field tested and performed

comparable to our research lure. The recommended lure should last at least 4 weeks.

This system provides a strong lure and trap system for Lacanobia. It is also attractive to

other moths however, primarily Noctuidae. This makes monitoring difficult because captured moths

must be sorted and the Lacanobia moths recognized. This lure and trap was evaluated in a variety of

habitats throughout the season to determine what types of moths are trapped (Landolt and Hammon in

press). In apple orchards, moths captured are primarily Lacanobia, bertha armyworm, and spotted

cutworm, while many other species are captured if traps are placed in natural habitats. For this

reason, it is recommended that traps be placed well within orchard blocks, in order to minimize

capture of non-target moths. Few insects in addition to noctuid moths are captured in these traps and

the use of a dry trap makes moth identification much easier than in the previously tested wet trap

(Agrisense Dome or Trappitt trap).

An optimum feeding attractant system for Pandemis leafroller was also developed. The

recommended lure is a single 8 ml polypropylene vial with a hole in the lid that is 3 mm in diameter.

The vial possesses 5 ml of acetic acid on cotton and is placed within a large Delta style sticky trap.

An optimum feeding attractant system was also developed for the codling moth, but appears

to be too ineffective to be useful. It is comprised of a single 8 ml polypropylene vial with a hole in

the lid that is 1 mm in diameter. The vial possesses 5 ml of acetic acid on cotton and is placed within

a Pherocon Wing trap.

The development of a dispenser for acetic acid permitted the testing of dry trap designs. The

original method of dispensing acetic acid was to place it in the drowning solution of a wet trap.

Moths captured in these wet traps were very difficult to identify and were prone to rapid

decomposition during hot weather. The dispenser led to the identification of effective dry trap

designs for all three species of moths and made the use of the wet traps obsolete.

Comparison of Monitoring Methods

Results of season long monitoring of Lacanobia moths in orchards provided comparisons of

pheromonal and feeding attractant monitoring systems. With both types of lures, the general

phenology of Lacanobia was evident, with two distinct flights of moths. Numbers of moths captured

were adequate with both lures at all sites to track moth phenology. However, there was considerable

variance in the relationship between numbers of moths captured in feeding attractant traps and

numbers of moths captured in pheromone traps. That is, in some blocks many more moths were

captured in pheromone traps and in some blocks numbers of moths captured were comparable with

the different lures. Although the data analysis is preliminary at this point in time, statistical analyses

of trap catch results for Lacanobia moths indicates a much stronger correlation between numbers of

moths captured in feeding attractant traps versus pheromone traps and numbers of larvae found in the

sampling of tree foliage. These data will be combined with earlier sampling done for Lacanobia by

Mark Hitchcox and work conducted by Jay Brunner’s laboratory to see if this pattern is consistent.

Numbers of Pandemis leafroller moths captured in feeding attractant traps were consistently

less than numbers in pheromone traps. However, these numbers were still sufficient to track the

phenology of the moth through the season, with both types of lures. Additionally, as with Lacanobia

moths, there was consistently a stronger correlation between numbers of Pandemis leafroller moths

captured in feeding attractant traps versus pheromone traps and the numbers of leafroller larvae found

in searches of orchard blocks.

Improvement of Chemical Blends as Feeding Attractants

A number of additional chemicals were tested in combination with acetic acid or added to the

combination of acetic acid and 3-methyl-1-butanol. These included reassessing terpeneols, testing of

several plant compounds reported in early literature to be attractive to codling moth, and developing

and testing slow release formulations for carbon dioxide. These added chemicals did not consistently

increase the capture of Lacanobia, Pandemis, or codling moth in traps baited with either acetic acid

and 3-methyl-1-butanol or acetic acid.

References

Landolt, P. J. 2000. New chemical attractants for trapping Lacanobia subjuncta, Mamestra

configurata, and Xestia c-nigrum (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 93: 101-106.

Landolt, P. J. and J. F. Alfaro.2001. Trappinig Lacanobia subjuncta, Mamestra configurata, and

Xestia c-nigrum (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with acetic acid and 3-methyl-1-butanol in controlled

release dispensers. Environ. Entomol.

Landolt, P. J. and P. Hammond. Captures of non-target moths in traps baited with acetic acid and 3-

methyl-1-butanol. J. Lepid. Soc. (In press)

Budget:

Development of Feeding Atttractants as Monitoring Lures for moth pests of apple.

Peter J. Landolt,

Project Duration: 1999-2001

Current Year: 2002

Year Year 1 (1999) Year 2 (2000) Year 3 (2001)

Salary 15,350 17,000

Benefits 5,100

Supplies 2,500 4,000

Travel 750 1,000

Total 22,750 23,700 22,000

Project cost 1999-2001: $48,450

Download PDF