Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mcfzb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-09T17:50:03.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 21 - Use of pheromones in IPM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2010

By
Thomas C. Baker
Edited by
Edward B. Radcliffe ,
William D. Hutchison  and
Rafael E. Cancelado
Edward B. Radcliffe
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
William D. Hutchison
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access

Summary

During the past 68 years that have elapsed since the identification of the first insect pheromone (Butenandt, 1959) there has been a bourgeoning of basic and applied research that has resulted in an amazingly diverse and effective use of pheromones in IPM. Other behavior-modifying semiochemicals have had more limited success on a commercial level, although much research is continuing to try to find new ways to make such chemicals as host plant volatiles more useful in IPM settings as attractants or deterrents.

Although pheromones have established themselves in IPM systems, most end-users and even applied researchers do not realize how much work goes into identifying and optimizing pheromone blends so that they become highly species-specific and optimally attractive to the target species so that they can be used to the best effect. Research to determine the most effective pheromone blend compositions and dispenser dosages for monitoring and detection typically takes five to ten years to complete. Optimizing trap design targeting particular species can take several more years. Sometimes effective pheromones cannot be elucidated at all despite decades of intensive effort.

Delivery of effective commercial products presents another hurdle. For instance, applied pheromone researchers may spend years establishing that a particular mating disruption system is highly effective at disrupting mating and reducing crop damage after conducting experiments in which disruptant dispenser dosages and deployment densities have been varied.

Type
Chapter
Information
Integrated Pest Management
Concepts, Tactics, Strategies and Case Studies
 , pp. 273 - 285
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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

Agnello, A. M., Kovach, J., Nyrop, J. P.et al. (1994). Extension and evaluation of a simplified monitoring program in New York apples. American Entomologist, 40, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, T. C. (1985). Chemical control of behaviour. In Comprehensive Insect Physiology, Biochemistry, and Pharmacology, eds. Kerkut, G. A. & Gilbert, L. S., pp. 621–672. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Baker, T. C., Fadamiro, H. Y. & Cossé, A. A. (1998). Moth uses fine tuning for odor resolution. Nature, 393, 530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, T. C., Staten, R. T. & Flint, H. M. (1990). Use of pink bollworm pheromone in the southwestern United States. In Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management, eds. Ridgway, R. L., Silverstein, R. M. & Inscoe, M. N., pp. 417–436. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Brunner, J., Welter, S., Calkins, C.et al. (2001). Mating disruption of codling moth: a perspective from the Western United States. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin, 25, 207–215.Google Scholar
Butenandt, A. (1959). Wirkstoffe des Insektenveiches. Naturwissenschaften, 46, 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardé, R. T. (1990). Principles of mating disruption. In Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management, eds. Ridgway, R. L., Silverstein, R. M. & Inscoe, M. N., pp. 47–71. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Cardé, R. T. & Minks, A. K. (1995). Control of moth pests by mating disruption: successes and constraints. Annual Review of Entomology, 40, 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardé, R. T., Baker, T. C. & Castrovillo, P. J. (1977). Disruption of sexual communication in Laspeyresia pomonella (codling moth), Grapholitha molesta (oriental fruit moth) and G. prunivora (lesser appleworm) with hollow fiber attractant sources. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 22, 280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardé, R. T., Mafra-Neto, A., Staten, R. T. & Kuenen, L. P. S. (1997). Understanding mating disruption in the pink bollworm moth. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin, 20, 191–201.Google Scholar
Charmillot, P. J. (1990). Mating disruption technique to control codling moth in western Switzerland. In Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management, eds. Ridgway, R. L, Silverstein, R. M. & Inscoe, M. N., pp. 165–182. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Chinchilla, C. M. & Oehlschlager, A. C. (1992). Capture of Rhynchophorus palmarum in traps baited with the male-produced aggregation pheromone. ASD Oil Palm Papers, 5, 1–8.Google Scholar
Elkinton, J. S. & Cardé, R. T. (1981). The use of pheromone traps to monitor distribution and population trends of the gypsy moth. In Management of Insect Pests with Semiochemicals, ed. Mitchell, E. R, pp. 41–55. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evendon, M. L., Judd, G. J. R. & Borden, J. H. (1999a). Pheromone-mediated mating disruption of Choristoneura rosaceana: is the most attractive blend really the most effective? Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 90, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evendon, M. L., Judd, G. J. R. & Borden, J. H. (1999b). Mating disruption of two sympatric, orchard-inhabiting tortricids, Choristoneura rosaceana and Pandemis limitata (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), with pheromone components of both species' blends. Journal of Economic Entomology, 92, 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evendon, M. L., Judd, G. J. R. & Borden, J. H. (1999c). Simultaneous disruption of pheromone communication in Choristoneura rosaceana and Pandemis limitata with pheromone and antagonist blends. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 25, 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evendon, M. L., Judd, G. J. R. & Borden, J. H. (2000). Investigations of mechanisms of pheromone communication disruption of Choristoneura rosaceana (Harris) in a wind tunnel. Journal of Insect Behavior, 13, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadamiro, H. Y. & Baker, T. C. (1999). Reproductive performance and longevity of female European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis: effects of multiple mating, delay in mating, and adult feeding. Journal of Insect Physiology, 45, 385–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fadamiro, H. Y., Cossé, A. A. & Baker, T. C. (1999). Mating disruption of European corn borer, Ostrinia nubilalis, by using two types of sex pheromone dispensers deployed in grassy aggregation sites in Iowa cornfields. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 2, 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardee, D. D., Mitchell, E. B. & Huddleston, P. M. (1967a). Field studies of sex attraction in the boll weevil. Journal of Economic Entomology, 60, 1221–1224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardee, D. D., Mitchell, E. B. & Huddleston, P. M. (1967b). Procedure for bioassaying the sex attractant of the boll weevil. Journal of Economic Entomology, 60, 169–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, K. F., Li, W. G. & Baker, T. C. (1986). Control of pink bollworm moth (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) with insecticides and pheromones (attracticide): lethal and sublethal effects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 79, 1466–1471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Justus, K. A. & Cardé, R. T. (2002). Flight behaviour of two moths, Cadra cautella and Pectinophora gossypiella, in homogeneous clouds of pheromone. Physiological Entomology, 27, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, J. S., Ludlow, A. R. & Sanders, C. J. (1981). Guidance of flying male moths by wind-borne sex pheromone. Physiological Entomology, 6, 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, A. L. (1997). Delay of mating of codling moth in pheromone disrupted orchards. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin, 20, 203–206.Google Scholar
Madsen, H. F. (1981). Monitoring codling moth populations in British Columbia apple orchards. In Management of Insect Pests with Semiochemicals, ed. Mitchell, E. R., pp. 57–62. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, E., Staten, R. T., Nowell, C. & Gourd, J. (1990). Pink bollworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae): point source density and its relationship to efficacy in attracticide formulations of gossyplure. Journal of Economic Entomology, 83, 1321–1325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. R., Gut, L. J., Lame, F. M. & Stelinski, L. L. (2006a). Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechansisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone. I. Theory. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 32, 2089–2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. R., Gut, L. J., Lame, F. M. & Stelinski, L. L. (2006b). Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone. II. Case studies. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 32, 2115–2144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minks, A. K. & Cardé, R. T. (1988). Disruption of pheromone communication in moths: is the natural blend really most efficacious? Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 49, 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehlschlager, A.C., Pierce, H.D., Morgan, B.et al. (1992). Chirality and field testing of Rhynchophorol, the aggregation pheromone of the American palm weevil. Naturwissenschaften (Berlin), 79, 134–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehlschlager, A. C., Chinchilla, C. M., Gonzales, L. M.et al. (1993). Development of a pheromone-based trapping system for Rhynchophorus palmarum (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 86, 1381–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehlschlager, A. C., Chinchilla, C., Castillo, G. & Gonzalez, L. (2002). Control of red ring disease by mass trapping of Rhynchophorus palmarum (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Florida Entomologist, 85, 507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, R. E. & Kirsch, P. (1990). Mating disruption of oriental fruit moth in the United States. In Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management, eds. Ridgway, R. L., Silverstein, R. M. & Inscoe, M. N., pp. 193–211. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Ridgway, R. L., Inscoe, M. N. & Dickerson, W.A. 1990. Role of the boll weevil pheromone in pest management. In Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management, eds. Ridgway, R. L., Silverstein, R. M. & Inscoe, M.N., pp. 437–471. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Riedl, H. & Croft, B. A. (1974). A study of pheromone trap catches in relation to codling moth (Lepidoptera: Olethreutidae) damage. Canadian Entomologist, 112, 655–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riedl, H., Croft, B. A. & Howitt, A. G. (1976). Forecasting codling moth phenology based on pheromone trap catches and physiological-time models. Canadian Entomologist, 108, 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showers, W. B., Smelser, R. B., Keaster, A. J.et al. (1989a). Recapture of marked black cutworm (Lepidoptera: Noactuidae) males after long-range transport. Environmental Entomology, 18, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Showers, W. B., Whitford, F., Smelser, R. B.et al. (1989b). Direct evidence for meteorologically driven long-range dispersals of an economically important moth. Ecology, 70, 987–992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staten, R. T., El-Lissy, O. & Antilla, L. (1997). Successful area-wide program to control pink bollworm by mating disruption. In Insect Pheromone Research: New Directions, eds. Cardé, R. T. & Minks, A. K., pp. 383–396. New York: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelinski, L. L., Miller, J. R. & Gut, L. J. (2003a). Presence of long-lasting peripheral adaptation in the obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana and the absence of such adaptation in the redbanded leafroller, Argyrotaenia velutinana. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 29, 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelinski, L. L., Gut, L. J. & Miller, J. R (2003b). Concentration of air-borne pheromone required for long-lasting peripheral adaptation in the obliquebanded leafroller, Choristoneura rosaceana. Physiological Entomology, 28, 97–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelinski, L. L., Gut, L J., Pierzchala, A. V. & Miller, J. R. (2004). Field observations quantifying attraction of four tortricid moth species to high-dosage pheromone rope dispensers in untreated and pheromone-treated apple orchards. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 113, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelinski, L. L., Gut, L. J., Epstein, D. & Miller, J. R. (2005). Attraction of four tortricid moth species to high dosage pheromone rope dispensers: observations implicating false plume following as an important factor in mating disruption. IOBC/WPRS Bulletin, 28, 313–317.Google Scholar
Tumlinson, J. H., Hardee, D. D., Minyard, J. P.et al. (1968). Boll weevil sex attractant: isolation studies. Journal of Economic Entomology, 61, 470–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumlinson, J. H., Hardee, D. D., Gueldner, R. C.et al. (1969). Sex pheromones produced by male boll weevil: Isolation, identification, and synthesis. Science, 166, 1010–1012.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tumlinson, J. H., Gueldner, R. C., Hardee, D. D.et al. (1970). The boll weevil sex attractant. In Chemicals Controlling Insect Behavior, ed. Beroza, M., pp. 41–59. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tumlinson, J. H., Gueldner, R. C., Hardee, D. D.et al. (1971). Identification and synthesis of the four compounds comprising the boll weevil sex attractant. Journal of Organic Chemistry, 36, 2616–2621.Google Scholar
Vickers, R. A. (1990). Oriental fruit moth in Australia and Canada. In Behavior-Modifying Chemicals for Insect Management, eds. Ridgway, R. L., Silverstein, R. M. & Inscoe, M. N., pp. 183–192. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Vickers, R. A., Rothschild, G. H. L. & Jones, E. L. (1985). Control of the oriental fruit moth, Cydia molesta (Busck) (Lepidoptera:Tortricidae), at a district level by mating disruption with synthetic female pheromone. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 75, 625–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×