Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:46:42.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EVALUATION OF HIGH-CAPACITY, NONSATURATING SEX PHEROMONE TRAPS FOR MONITORING POPULATION DENSITIES OF SPRUCE BUDWORM (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C.J. Sanders
C.J. Sanders
Affiliation:
Canadian Forestry Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre, PO Box 490, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada P6A 5M7
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The efficiency of two sticky-bottomed traps and seven high-capacity, nonsticky traps in catching male spruce budworm [Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)] moths was evaluated in a wind tunnel. The place where the male moths first contacted the trap, the length of time that passed until they entered the trap, and the number remaining in the trap after 5 min were recorded. The most efficient traps were the Pherocon 1 C, a sticky-bottomed trap, and the Multi-Pher and Uni-trap, both nonsticky traps with internal funnel-shaped baffles that prevent moths from escaping. As sticky traps become saturated at relatively low densities they are not suitable for monitoring wide changes in population density. The Multi-Pher and Uni-trap are therefore recommended for monitoring population changes of the spruce budworm, establishing thresholds for management action, and estimating population density.

Résumé

L’efficacité de deux pièges à fond adhésif et de sept pièges de grande capacité, non adhésifs, pour la capture des papillons mâles de la tordeuse des bourgeons de l’épinette [Choristoneura fumiferana (Clem.)] a été évaluée dans une soufflerie. L’endroit où les papillons mâles sont entrés en contact pour la première fois avec le piège, le temps écoulé jusqu’à ce qu’ils pénètrent dans le piège et le nombre de papillons restant dans le piège après 5 min ont été pris en note. Les pièges les plus efficaces étaient le Pherocon 1 C, qui est un piège à fond adhésif, et les pièges Multi-Pher et Uni-trap qui sont tous deux des pièges non adhésifs renfermant à l’intérieur un entonnoir pour empêcher les papillons de ressortir. Comme les pièges adhésifs deviennent saturés à des densités relativement faibles, ils ne conviennent pas pour surveiller les changements importants de la densité des populations. Les pièges Multi-Pher et Uni-trap sont donc recommandés pour la surveillance des populations de la tordeuse des bourgeons de l’épinette, l’établissement des seuils d’intervention et l’estimation de la densité des populations.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 118 , Issue 7 , July 1986 , pp. 611 - 619
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1986

References

Angerilli, N., and McLean, J.A.. 1984. Wind tunnel and field observations of western spruce budworm responses to pheronome-baited traps. J. ent. Soc. Brit. Columbia 81: 10–16.Google Scholar
Elkinton, J.S., and Childs, R.D.. 1983. Efficiency of 2 gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) pheromone baited traps. Environ. Ent. 12: 1519–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentry, C.R., Beroza, M., Blythe, J.L., and Bierl, B.A.. 1974. Efficacy trials with the pheromone of the oriental fruit moth and data on the lesser appleworm. J. econ. Ent. 67: 607–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houseweart, M.W., Jennings, D.T., and Sanders, C.J.. 1981. Variables associated with pheromone traps for monitoring spruce budworm populations (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 113: 527–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, D.M., Jennings, D.T., and Houseweart, M.W.. 1982. A large-capacity pheromone trap for spruce budworm moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 114: 461–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, T., and Macauley, E.D.M.. 1976. Design and evaluation of sex-attractant traps for pea moth, Cydia nigricana (Steph.) and the effects of plume shape on catches. Ecol. Ent. 1: 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, B.S., Sweeney, J.D., and McLean, J.A.. 1984. Comparative evaluation of traps for monitoring the Douglas-fir tussock moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). J. ent. Soc. Brit. Columbia 81: 3–9.Google Scholar
Ramaswamy, S.B., and Cardé, R.T.. 1982. Nonsaturating traps and long-life attractant lures for monitoring spruce budworm males. J. econ. Ent. 75: 126–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C.J. 1978. Evaluation of sex attractant traps for monitoring spruce budworm populations (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Can. Ent. 110: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C.J. 1981 a. Sex attractant traps: their role in the management of spruce budworm. pp. 75–92in Mitchell, E.R. (Ed.), Management of Insect Pests with Semiochemicals: Concepts and Practice. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C.J. 1981 b. Release rates and attraction of PVC lures containing synthetic attractant of the spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana. Can. Ent. 113: 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, C.J., Lucuik, G.S., and Fletcher, R.M.. 1981. Responses of male spruce budworm to different concentrations of sex pheromone as measured in a sustained-flight wind-tunnel. Can. Ent. 113: 943–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, R.G.D., and Torrie, J.H.. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Voerman, S., and Van Deventer, P.. 1984. An omnidirectional pheromone trap with high catch capacity for apple clearwing moth, Synanthedon myopaeformis (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). Ent. Ber. 44: 38–40.Google Scholar