| Title: | "Is the Combination of Insecticide and Mating Disruption Synergistic or Additive in Lightbrown Apple Moth, Epiphyas postvittana?" |
| Author(s): | Suckling DM; Baker G; Salehi L; Woods B; |
| Address: | "The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand and School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Building 733, Tamaki Campus, Auckland, New Zealand. Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre, Bruce ACT, Australia. Better Border Biosecurity, Christchurch, New Zealand. Entomology Unit, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Department of Food and Agriculture, South Perth, WA, Australia" |
| DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pone.0160710 |
| ISSN/ISBN: | 1932-6203 (Electronic) 1932-6203 (Linking) |
| Abstract: | "Pest suppression from combinations of tactics is fundamental to pest management and eradication. Interactions may occur among tactical combinations and affect suppression. The best case is synergistic, where suppression from a combination is greater than the sum of effects from single tactics (AB >> A+B). We explored how mating disruption and insecticide interacted at field scale, additively or synergistically. Use of a pheromone delivery formulation (SPLAT) as either a mating disruption treatment (i.e. a two-component pheromone alone) or as a lure and kill treatment (i.e. the two-component pheromone plus a permethrin insecticide) was compared for efficacy against the lightbrown apple moth Epiphyas postvittana. Next, four point-source densities of the SPLAT formulations were compared for communication disruption. Finally, the mating disruption and lure and kill treatments were applied with a broadcast insecticide. Population assessment used virgin female traps and synthetic pheromone in replicated 9-ha vineyard plots compared with untreated controls and insecticide-treated plots, to investigate interactions. Lure and kill and mating disruption provided equivalent suppression; no additional benefit accrued from including permethrin with the pheromone suggesting lack of contact. The highest point-source density tested (625/ha) was most effective. The insect growth regulator methoxyfenoxide applied by broadcast application lowered pest prevalence by 70% for the first ten weeks compared to pre-trial. Pheromone addition suppressed the pest further by an estimated 92.5%, for overall suppression of 97.7% from the treatment combination of insecticide plus mating disruption. This was close to that expected for an additive model of interactivity between insecticide and mating disruption (AB = A+B) estimated from plots with single tactics as 98% suppression in a combination. The results indicate the need to examine other tactical combinations to achieve the potential cost-efficiencies of synergistic interactions" |
| Keywords: | "Animals Insect Control/*methods Insecticides/*pharmacology Malus/*parasitology Moths/*drug effects Sex Attractants/*pharmacology Sexual Behavior, Animal/*drug effects;" |
| Notes: | "MedlineSuckling, David M Baker, Greg Salehi, Latif Woods, Bill eng 2016/08/09 PLoS One. 2016 Aug 8; 11(8):e0160710. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160710. eCollection 2016" |
