Фітосанітарний моніторинг шкідливої ентомофауни посівів сої в умовах рисових зрошувальних систем

Мета. Визначення видового складу ентомофагівта виявлення домінуючих шкідників посівів сої у корот-коротаційних рисових сівозмінах Південного СтепуУкраїни. Методи. Польовий, лабораторний, розрахунко-во-порівняльний і статистичний. Результати. Отриманоінформацію щодо видового складу шкідників у посівахсої та встановлено їх домінуючі види у короткоротаційнихрисових сівозмінах: метелик лучний (Margaritia sticticalis L.),сонцевик будяковий, або чортополохівка (Vanessacardui L.), клоп трав’яний (Lygus rugulipennis Popp.), клоплюцерновий (Adelphocoris lineolatus Goeze.), щитниклюцерновий (Piezodorus lituratus F.), трипс тютюновий(Thrips tabaci Lind.), совка-гамма (Autographa gamma L.),совка люцернова (Chloridea viriplaca Hfn.), коник зелений(Tettigonia viridissima L.), прус італійський (Calliptamusitalicus L.), попелиця велика злакова (Sitobion avenae F.),кліщ павутинний звичайний (Tetranychus urticae Koch.),сарана мароканська (Dociostaurus maroccanus Thunb.),цикадка шестикрапкова (Macrosteles laevis Kib.); цика-дка смугаста (Psammotettix striatus L.), елія носата (Aeliarostrata Bsh.), довгоносик смугастий бульбочковий(Sitona lineatus L.), довгоносик сірий щетинистий (Sitonacrinitus Hfn.), совка бавовникова (Helicoverpa armigera),вогнівка акацієва (Etiella zinckenella Tr.). Висновки.Кількість виявлених видів шкідників у посівах сої становила: ряд лускокрилих (Lepidoptera) – 38,0%; ака-риформні кліщі (Acariformes) 22,0%, бахромчастокрилі(Thysanoptera) – 17,0%, напівтвердокрилі (Hemiptera) –10,0%, представники ряду рівнокрилих (Homoptera) – 5,0%,прямокрилих (Orthoptera) – 5,0% та твердокрилих(Coleoptera) – 3,0%. Домінуючими видами в умовах рисо-вих чеків були: метелик лучний (Pyrausta sticticalis L.) –15 екз./м2, трипс тютюновий (цибулевий) (Thripstabaci Lind.) – 50 екз./м2, звичайний павутинний кліщ(Tetranychus urticae Koch.) – 47 екз./рослину, сонце-вик будяковий (чортополохівка) (Vanessa cardui L.) –від 2 до 5 екз./м2.

Comparison of Different Trap Designs for Capture of Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) With Pheromone and Floral Odor Attractants

Six trap designs were assessed for capturing noctuid moths in field trials in the United Kingdom and Argentina. The traps were baited with either a sex pheromone for Autographa gamma in the UK trials and Helicoverpa gelotopoeon (Dyar) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Argentina, or a floral odor blend. In the UK trials the Universal Trap and a funnel sleeve trap were compared; in Argentina the funnel sleeve trap, a homemade bucket trap, and (L.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) three sticky traps: LepTrap, wing trap, and delta trap were compared. Comparisons were made between the traps and attractants and captures of noctuid moths and nontarget insects. Traps baited with the floral attractant caught a lower number but a wider range of noctuid species including Helicoverpa, Spodoptera, Rachiplusia, Dargida, Mythimna, Chrysodeixis, Agrotis, and Autographa spp., and nontarget insects. In the UK trials, the funnel sleeve trap caught significantly more A. gamma than the Universal Trap. The addition of an insecticide to the Universal Trap marginally increased trap catches. In the Argentinian trials, the homemade bucket and the sleeve traps outperformed all sticky traps in most situations regardless of crop environment and attractant type. The homemade bucket and the funnel sleeve traps are also considerably cheaper than the other trap designs. Of the sticky traps the LepTrap caught more noctuids than the wing and delta traps. The results suggest that the bucket trap and the sleeve trap have a much greater maximum capacity and possibly a greater retention efficiency for noctuid moths compared to the sticky traps.

Was the Silver Y Moth Autographa gamma (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Plusiinae) in South America?

In this study we confirmed former records of Autographa gamma in South America by examining four individuals collected in different locations of Brazil and Uruguay. Species identity was established by examining male and female genitalia morphology. Some, but not all, location records are in the vicinity of cities with large seaports used for commercial trades of agricultural goods. Additionally, literature records indicate this species was using local hostplants. Furthermore, addtional repports states that this species had large populations during the end of thirties decade but vanished after that without further justification. Here we discuss aspects related to a possible reintroduction of species in the future as a consequence of the increasing world trade business.

Noctuid moths as potential hybridization agents for Platanthera orchids

Zoophilous flowering plants communicate with pollinators to ensure pollen transfer. Pin-pointing which species are effective pollinators is not only essential to better understand plant-pollinator networks, but equally so to better understand the potential of hybridization in plant systems, such as in orchids. As a case study, we studied two sympatric populations of the congeneric orchids Platanthera bifolia and P. chlorantha in order to assess their nocturnal pollinators by checking which moth species carried pollinaria, and of which orchid species. Moths carrying Platanthera pollinaria were photographed and identified. The carried pollinaria were identified and counted, and their attachment position on the moth’s head was scored. Based on these observations we show that three species of noctuid moths visited the Platanthera inflorescences. Although Noctua pronuba visited P. chlorantha, only Cucullia umbratica and Autographa gamma turned out to be potential pollinators for both orchid species. As such, we here demonstrate that the latter two noctuids have high potential to facilitate hybridization among these two orchid species, especially so in sympatric populations.