host attractants
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

8
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

5
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas R. Larson ◽  
Jaime Strickland ◽  
Vonnie D. Shields ◽  
Cesar Rodriguez-Saona ◽  
Kevin Cloonan ◽  
...  

Drosophila suzukii, more commonly known as the spotted-wing drosophila (SWD), is an invasive pest of soft, thin-skinned fruit responsible for significant economic losses for growers worldwide. To detect and monitor this pest, several host attractants have been developed for use in trapping SWD; however, they lack selectivity. Therefore, there is a significant need for more selective monitoring devices to enable growers to make timely pest management decisions to properly protect vulnerable crops. Previous studies identified a quinary blend (QB), based on fermenting apple juice odors, which offers significantly higher selectivity by reducing non-target captures compared with the standard apple cider vinegar bait commonly used by growers in the orchards. In this study, the selectivity and efficacy of a home-made QB dispenser was compared to an industry formulated version of the QB components (ChemTica) and two commercially available (Scentry and Trécé) SWD dispensers across blueberry and raspberry fields in Maryland, West Virginia, and New Jersey in different seasons. Controlled-release dispensers of the QB (home-made and ChemTica) consistently had higher selectivity within the blueberry and raspberry field sites compared with the two commercial dispensers; although efficacy was compromised such that total SWD captures per trap tended to be lower. The selectivity ratio range of SWD to non-targets (all non-SWD) for a QB-based (ChemTica) dispenser averaged from 15 to 57% compared with other commercial dispensers that ranged from 1 to 30% based on location and year. Due to high selectivity of the controlled-release dispenser of the QB, the potential for this dispenser to be utilized by growers as a SWD detection and monitoring tool is high.





2009 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 542-551 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeyasankar Alagarmalai ◽  
David Nestel ◽  
Daniela Dragushich ◽  
Ester Nemny-Lavy ◽  
Leonid Anshelevich ◽  
...  


1988 ◽  
Vol 120 (12) ◽  
pp. 1041-1050 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Swedenborg ◽  
Richard L. Jones ◽  
Mark E. Ascerno ◽  
Val R. Landwehr

AbstractField tests, using bolts of American elm trees either uninfested or infested with laboratory-reared or feral Hylurgopinus rufipes (Eichhoff), the native elm bark beetle, were conducted to evaluate colonization behavior of the beetle. The data confirm that (1) colonization of elm by H. rufipes can be accounted for by host attractants alone; (2) overwintered adult H. rufipes are attracted to broodwood (moribund or recently cut elm) in the spring, but summer-emergent adults are attracted to healthy elm; and (3) H. rufipes attacks broodwood primarily during evening beetle flights, and females initiate the gallery. A beetle-produced sex pheromone may be involved in the male–female pairing on broodwood.



1972 ◽  
Vol 104 (6) ◽  
pp. 815-822 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. Rudinsky ◽  
M. M. Furniss ◽  
L. N. Kline ◽  
R. F. Schmitz

AbstractComparative tests were made in Oregon and Idaho employing sticky traps with three synthetic pheromones of Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopkins, frontalin, 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one, and trans-verbenol, and the host attractants Douglas-fir resin, alpha-pinene, and camphene. The attractiveness of frontalin combined with host volatiles reported earlier from Idaho was confirmed. The combination of trans-verbenol with frontalin plus camphene in Oregon brought the highest response among synthetic treatments, but the addition of trans-verbenol to other treatments with frontalin sometimes decreased beetle response.3-Methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one almost nullified the attractiveness of all baits tested. The practical use of such a compound to prevent beetle aggregation and protect susceptible Douglas-fir trees as well as to regulate the "spillover" from attractive baits is considered as a possible new method of protection against bark beetles.





1969 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 383-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. A. Thomas ◽  
G. D. Hertel


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document