Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-lvtpz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-16T13:42:18.637Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field evaluation of a pheromone lure and trap designs for monitoring Lygus hesperus Knight (Hemiptera: Miridae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 November 2025

Diego Nieto Open the ORCID record for Diego Nieto [Opens in a new window] ,
James Hagler ,
Scott Machtley ,
Gabriel Zilnik  and
David Hall Open the ORCID record for David Hall [Opens in a new window]
Diego Nieto*
Affiliation:
Entomology Department, Driscoll’s Inc., Watsonville, CA, USA
James Hagler
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA
Scott Machtley
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA
Gabriel Zilnik
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, Maricopa, AZ, USA
David Hall
Affiliation:
Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Greenwich, UK
*
Corresponding author: Diego Nieto; Email: diego.nieto@driscolls.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lygus hesperus is an economically important pest of many crops. An effective monitoring method for the early detection of L. hesperus could improve its management. A recently developed pheromone lure has been shown to attract L. hesperus males, however, fewer males were captured than expected. It is unknown whether this was an effect of pheromone responsiveness or the type of trap used. Thus, we compared the efficacy of the previously used white delta sticky traps to red cylindrical sticky traps in strawberry fields in California and cotton fields in Arizona. Collections were made 1 and 2 weeks after trap deployment. In strawberry, pheromone baited traps captured more L. hesperus males than unbaited traps. More males were collected from baited red cylindrical sticky traps compared with either type of unbaited trap. In cotton, baited red cylindrical traps captured more males than unbaited traps after 1 week of field exposure, but not after 2 weeks of deployment. Overall, red cylindrical traps caught more L. hesperus males than white delta traps. Diminished trap captures during the second week of monitoring may be attributed to high temperatures in cotton that likely shortened the lure’s longevity and windy conditions in both strawberry and cotton that may have decreased the effectiveness of the trap’s adhesive. Additional work to clarify the lure’s field longevity and distinguish various elements of trap design (e.g. colour, adhesive, and shape) may further increase the operational effectiveness of pheromone-baited traps for L. hesperus.

Keywords

cottonLygus lineolarissticky trapstrawberrywestern tarnished plant bug

Information

Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , First View , pp. 1 - 8
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, WW and Gaede, SE (1963) The relationship of Lygus bugs and thrips to fruit deformity in strawberries. Journal of Economic Entomology 56(6), 823–825. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/56.6.823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, MN, Haftmann, J, Stuart, JJ, Cambron, SE, Harris, MO, Foster, SP, Franke, S, Francke, W and Hillbur, Y (2009) Identification of sex pheromone components of the Hessian fly, Mayetiola destructor. Journal of Chemical Ecology 35(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-008-9569-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AZMET (Arizona Meteorological Network) (2025) Maricopa: Station Data and Reports. https://cales.arizona.edu/azmet/06.htm (accessed 1 November 2025).Google Scholar
Beede, RH, Bentley, WJ, Daane, KM and Haviland, DR (2014) UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Pistachio. UC ANR Publication 3461. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/pistachio/small-plant-bugs/#gsc.tab=0 (accessed 1 April 2025).Google Scholar
Blackmer, JL, Byers, JA and Rodriguez-Saona, C (2008) Evaluation of color traps for monitoring Lygus spp.: Design, placement, height, time of day, and non-target effects. Crop Protection 27(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2007.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolda, M, Murdock, J, Goodrich, B and Sumner, D (2022) Sample Costs to Produce and Harvest Organic Strawberries. Davis, California: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/pub/2022/08/17/2022organicstrawberrycc-final_draft-august_2022.pdf.Google Scholar
Bolda, M, Tourte, L, Klonsky, K, De Moura, RL and Tumber, KP (2014) Sample Costs to Produce Organic Strawberries. Davis, California: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. https://ucanr.edu/sites/uccesc/files/210231.pdf.Google Scholar
Byrne, DN, Von Bretzel, PK and Hoffman, CJ (1986) Impact of trap design and placement when monitoring for the banded-winged whitefly and the sweetpotato whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Environmental Entomology 15(2), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/15.2.300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fountain, MT, Baroffio, C, Borg-Karlson, AK, Brain, P, Cross, JV, Farman, DI, Hall, DR, Ralle, B, Rendina, P, Richoz, P and Sigsgaard, L (2017) Design and deployment of semiochemical traps for capturing Anthonomus rubi Herbst (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) and Lygus rugulipennis Poppius (Hetereoptera: Miridae) in soft fruit crops. Crop Protection 99, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fountain, MT, Jåstad, G, Hall, D, Douglas, P, Farman, D and Cross, JV (2014) Further studies on sex pheromones of female Lygus and related bugs: Development of effective lures and investigation of species-specificity. Journal of Chemical Ecology 40, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-013-0375-z.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
George, J, Glover, JP, Reddy, GVP, Johnson, C and Hall, DR (2023b) Early season monitoring of tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris, in wild hosts using pheromone traps. Insects 14(10), 805. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects14100805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, J, Reddy, GVP, Little, N, Arnold, SEJ and Hall, DR (2023a) Combining visual cues and pheromone blends for monitoring and management of the tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Hemiptera: Miridae). Pest Management Science 79(6), 2163–2171. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.7395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, DR, Serrano, J, Yokota, GY, Nieto, DJ, Farman, DI, McElfresh, JS, Del Pozo-Valdivia, AI, Millar, JG and Daane, KM (2024) Development of practical pheromone lures for Lygus hesperus and Lygus elisus (Heteroptera: Miridae). Journal of Economic Entomology 18(1), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toae266.Google Scholar
Ho, HY and Millar, JG (2002) Identification, electroantennogram screening, and field bioassays of volatile chemicals from Lygus hesperus Knight (Heteroptera: Miridae). Zoological Studies 41, 311–320.Google Scholar
Jeppson, LR and MacLeod, GF (1946) Lygus bug injury and its effect on the growth of alfalfa. Hilgardia 17, 165–188. https://doi.org/10.3733/hilg.v17n04p165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, SV, Ahedo, R and de la Fuente, M (2016) Characterization of Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) feeding and oviposition injury on celery seedlings. Plant Health Progress 17(2), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHP-RS-15-0051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelton, LA (1975) The Lygus bugs (genus Lygus Hahn) of North America (Heteroptera: Miridae). The Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada 107(S95), 5–101. https://doi.org/10.4039/entm10795fv.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landis, BJ and Fox, L (1972) Lygus bugs in eastern Washington: Color preferences and winter activity. Environmental Entomology 1(4), 464–465. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/1.4.464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leigh, TF, Kerby, TA and Wynholds, PF (1988) Cotton square damage by the plant bug, Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Miridae), and abscission rates. Journal of Economic Entomology 81(5), 1328–1337. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/81.5.1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, PL, Wallis, R and Bellamy, DE (2019) The effectiveness of two types of adhesive for catching insects in traps. New Zealand Plant Protection 72, 230–236. https://doi.org/10.30843/nzpp.2019.72.301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, A, Gonthier, D, Sciligo, A, Garcia, K, Chiba, T, Juárez, G and Kremen, C (2024) Arthropod arbiters: Natural enemy communities mediate the effects of landscape and local-scale complexity on Lygus-induced crop loss in organic strawberries. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 8, 1336888. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1336888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainali, BP and Lim, UT (2010) Circular yellow sticky trap with black background enhances attraction of Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 45(1), 207–213. https://doi.org/10.1303/aez.2010.207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreira, JA and Millar, JG (2005) Short and simple syntheses of 4-oxo-(E)-2-hexenal and homologs: Pheromone components and defensive compounds of Hemiptera. Journal of Chemical Ecology 31, 965–968. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-004-1978-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, SC, Summers, CG and Goodell, PB (2003) A field key to the most common Lygus species found in agronomic crops of the central San Joaquin Valley of California. Univ of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publications 8104. http://cottoninfo.ucdavis.edu/IMAGES/lygus8104.pdfGoogle Scholar
Schowalter, TD, Overhulser, DL, Kanaskie, A, Stein, JD and Sexton, J (1986) Lygus hesperus as an agent of apical bud abortion in Douglas-fir nurseries in western Oregon. New Forests 1, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00028117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shrestha, G and Rondon, SI (2024) Host plant preference of Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) in 4 field crops: Potato, alfalfa, carrot, and pea. Environmental Entomology 53(2), 288–292. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvae009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tóth, M, Furlan, L, Xavier, A, Vuts, J, Toshova, T, Subchev, M, Szarukán, I and Yatsynin, V (2008) New sex attractant composition for the click beetle Agriotes proximus: Similarity to the pheromone of Agriotes lineatus. Journal of Chemical Ecology 34(1), 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-007-9398-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, C, Garthwaite, DG, Smyth, JB and Sherwood, A (1987) The efficacy of sex‐attractant monitoring for the pea moth, Cydia nigricana, in England, 1980–1985. Annals of Applied Biology 110(2), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.1987.tb03252.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witzgall, P, Kirsch, P and Cork, A (2010) Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management. Journal of Chemical Ecology 36, 80–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9737-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zalom, FG, Bolda, MP, Dara, SK and Joseph, SV (2018) UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines: Strawberry. UC ANR Publication #3468. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/strawberry/lygus-bug/#gsc.tab=0.Google Scholar
Zhang, T, Zhang, X, Wyckhuys, KA, Yao, Y, Li, H, Lu, W and Lu, Y (2021) Optimization and field demonstration of the Lygus pratensis (Hemiptera: Miridae) sex pheromone. Pest Management Science 77(2), 817–823. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed