Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:45:14.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some factors affecting the reliability of pheromone traps for measurement of the relative abundance of Helicoverpa punctigera (Wallengren) and H. armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2009

A. G. L. Wilson  and
R. Morton
A. G. L. Wilson
Affiliation:
CSIRO Cotton Research Unit, P.O. Box 59, Narrabri, NSW 2390, Australia
R. Morton
Affiliation:
CSIRO Biometrics Unit, P.O. Box 1666, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experiments were conducted in a cotton field in north-western New South Wales to determine the effect of pheromone trap design and placement on the catch of Helicoverpa punctigera (Wallengren) and H. armigera (Hübner) adults in paired traps. A cone trap design was found to give consistently larger catches of moths than two funnel trap designs. Furthermore, lower efficiency of catch of H. punctigera tended to bias relative catches in the funnel traps towards H. armigera. In comparison to the ratios of the two species in egg samples from the field, the cone trap did not show much bias to either species of moth. Traps located 40 m inside a cotton field showed larger catches and reduced variation compared with egg species ratios than traps placed at the edge of the field. Wind speed and direction and insecticide application also affected the catch in the traps. The catch data tended to become unreliable after the end of February, possibly due to changes in crop attractiveness for oviposition. It was found that the less numerous moth species at a given time still tended to be over-represented in pheromone traps in comparison to the ratios in egg counts. A linear time trend was introduced to compensate for the bias. The use of the traps shows promise in determining the relative abundance of the two species for use in resistance management strategies and other purposes.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 265 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Common, I. F. B. (1953). The Australian species of Heliothis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and their pest status.—Aust. J. Zool. 1, 319–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester, N. W. (1987). Insecticide resistance management strategy for Heliothis.—Agfacts no. AE. 43, 5 pp.Google Scholar
Gunning, R. V., Easton, C. S., Greenup, L. R. & Edge, V. E. (1984). Pyrethroid resistance in Heliothis armiger (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia.—J. econ. Ent. 77, 1283–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartstack, A. W. & Witz, J. A. (1981). Estimating field populations of tobacco budworm moths from pheromone trap catches.—Environ. Entomol. 10, 908–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartstack, A. W., Witz, J. A. & Buck, D. R. (1979). Moth traps for the tobacco budworm.—J. econ. Ent. 72, 519–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. R. (1983). Relationship between tobacco budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) catches when using pheromone traps and egg counts in cotton.—J. econ. Ent. 76, 182–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, I. R. (1977). Insecticide resistance in Heliothis armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in areas of Queensland, Australia.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 16, 43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehat, M., Gothilf, E., Dunkelblum, E. & Greenberg, S. (1982). Sex pheromone traps as a means of improving control programs for the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).—Environ. Entomol. 11, 727–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morton, R., Tuart, L. D. & Wardhaugh, K. G. (1981). The analysis and standardisation of lighttrap catches of Heliothis armiger (Hübner) and H. punctiger Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).—Bull. ent. Res. 71, 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawar, C. S. & Reed, W. (1984). Comparison of pheromone trap designs for monitoring Heliothis armigera (Hübner).—8 pp. Patancheru A. P., India, Int. Crops Res. Inst. Semi-Arid Trop., 1–8.Google Scholar
Rothschild, G. H. L. (1978). Attractants for Heliothis armigera and H. punctigera.—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 17, 389–390.Google Scholar
Rothschild, G. H. L., Wilson, A. G. L. & Malafant, K. W. (1982). Preliminary studies on the female sex pheromones of Heliothis species and their possible use in control programs in Australia.—pp. 319–327in Reed, W. & Kumble, V. (Eds). Proceedings of the International Workshop on Heliothis Management, ICRISAT Center, Patencheru, India, 15–2011 1981.—418 pp. Patancheru A. P., India, Int. Crops Res. Inst. Semi-Arid Trop.Google Scholar
Sage, T. L. & Gregg, P. C. (1985). A comparison of four types of pheromone traps for Heliothis armiger (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae).—J. Aust. entomol. Soc. 24, 99–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. G. L. (1974). Resistance of Heliothis armigera to insecticides in the Ord irrigation area, north western Australia.—J. econ. Ent. 67, 256–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, A. G. L. (1984). Evaluation of pheromone trap design and dispensers for monitoring Heliothis punctiger and H. armiger.—pp. 74–81in Bailey, P. & Swincer, D. (Eds). Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Applied Entomological Research Conference, Adelaide, 24–2809 1984. Pest control: recent advances and future prospects.—520 pp. Adelaide, S. Aust. Govt Printer.Google Scholar