Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:37:49.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) male moth catches in light and pheromone traps at udaipur, rajasthan, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

C. P. Srivastava  and
R. P. Srtvastava
C. P. Srivastava
Affiliation:
Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Rajasthan, India
R. P. Srtvastava
Affiliation:
Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Rajasthan, India
Get access

Abstract

Light and pheromone traps were compared for their relative efficiecy and importance in monitoring the Heliothis armigera (Hubner) moths at the farm of Rajasthan Agriculture University, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India, during the years 1984/85 (4 June 1984 to 3 June 1985) and 1985/86 (4 June 1985 to 3 June 1986). Both kinds of traps showed three periods of moth activity during both the cropping years. Both types of traps showed almost a similar trend in population fluctuation during the cropping years and there were significant positive correlations between light and pheromone trap catches, (r=0.87 for 1984/85 and r=0.93 for 1985/86). However, pheromone traps had many advantages over light trap in monitoring the Heliothis armigera moths.

Résumé

L'efficacité de plèges lumineux et de pièges à phéromone pour capturer des insectes males de Heliothis armigera a été comparée sur les terrains de l'Université agricole du Rajasthan, Inde, pendant deux années consécutives (1984–86). Les deux types de piéges ont permis de détecter trois périodes d'activité annuelle chez ce Lepidoptére ravageur. Les nombres de captures des deux pièges montrent une corrélation significativement positive (r=0.87 pour 1984/85 et r=0.93 pour 1985/86). Les pièges à phéromone présentent néanmoins plusieurs avantages par rapport aux pièges lumineux.

Keywords

Light trappheromone trapHeliothis armigeraPiège lumineuxpiège à phéromoneHeliothis armigera
Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 10 , Issue 5 , October 1989 , pp. 565 - 568
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 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

REFERENCES

Balasubramanian, G., Chelliah, S. and Balasubramanian, M. (1985) Comparison of Heliothis armigera moth catches in pheromone and light traps at Coimbatore, India. Int. Pigeonpea Newsl. 4, 48–49.Google Scholar
Bhatnagar, V.S. and Davies, J.C. (1979) Insect light trap studies at ICRISAT Centre. Progress Report, Cropping Entomology 2. ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P. India.Google Scholar
Dent, D.R. (1985) Population studies of Heliothis armigera Hubner (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) through the analysis and interpretation of light and pheromone trap catches and larval counts. Departmental Progress Report (Pulse Entomology), No. 18, ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P. India.Google Scholar
Hartstack, A.W., Hollingsworth, J.P., Ridgway, R.L. and Coppedge, J.R. (1973) A population dynamics study of the bollworm and the tobacco budworm with light traps. Environ. Entomol. 2, 244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendricks, D.E., Graham, H.M., Guerra, R.J. and Perez, C.T. (1973) Comparisons of numbers of tobacco budworms and bollworms caught in sex pheromone traps vs. blacklight traps in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, Texas. J. Econ. Entomol. 64, 361–364.Google Scholar
Morton, R., Tuart, L.D. and Wardaugh, K.G. (1981) The analysis and standardisation of light trap catches of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) and H. punctiger Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Bull. Entomol. Res. 71, 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemec, S.J. (1971) Effects of lunar phases on light trap collections and population of bollworm moths. J. Econ. Entomol. 64, 860–864.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, B.F., Beevor, P.S., Hall, D.R. and Lester, R. (1980) (Z)-9-Hexadecenal: A minor component of the female sex pheromone of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Entomol. Exp. Appl. 27, 306–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawar, C.S., Sithanantham, S., Sharma, H.C., Taneja, S.L., Amin, P.W., Leuschner, K. and Reed, W. (1984) Use and development of insect traps at ICRISAT. Paper presented at the National Seminar on Use of Traps in Vector Research and Control, 10–11 March 1984 at Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya, Kalyani, West Bengal, India.Google Scholar
Pawar, C.S., Srivastava, C.P. and Reed, W. (1986) Some aspects of population dynamics of Heliothis armigera at ICRISAT Centre. In III Oriental Entomology Symposium, 21–24 February 1984, Trivandrum, Kerala, India, pp. 79–85.Google Scholar
Pawar, C.S., Sithanantham, S., Bhatnagar, V.S., Srivastava, C.P. and Reed, W. (1988) The development of sex pheromone trapping of Heliothis armigera at ICRISAT, India. Trop. Pest Manage. 34, 39–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaishampayan, S.M. and Verma, Rajesh (1982) Influence of moon light and lunar periodicity on the light trap catches of gram pod borer, Heliothis armigera (Hubn.) moths. Indian J. Entomol. 44, 206–212.Google Scholar