Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous Abstract"Essential oil of Plectranthus tenuicaulis leaves from Gabon, source of (R),(E)-6,7-epoxyocimene. An unusual chemical composition within the genus Plectranthus"    Next AbstractChemosensory Proteins (CSPs) in the Cotton Bollworm Helicoverpa armigera »

J Econ Entomol


Title:Novel barriers to prevent dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) and rodent damage in apple plantings
Author(s):Agnello AM; Kain DP; Gardner J; Curtis PD; Ashdown ML; Hoffmann MP;
Address:
Journal Title:J Econ Entomol
Year:2014
Volume:107
Issue:3
Page Number:1179 - 1186
DOI: 10.1603/ec14040
ISSN/ISBN:0022-0493 (Print) 0022-0493 (Linking)
Abstract:"We evaluated a combination of noninsecticidal alternatives to control trunk-damaging dogwood borer, Synanthedon scitula (Harris), consisting of novel barrier technologies, used alone or in combination with mating disruption. Barrier formulations evaluated included fibrous barriers of nonwoven ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) and nonfibrous barriers of rubberized paint (elastomer) used in building coatings. To examine efficacy of dogwood borer control in orchards, all barrier trials were replicated in field tests, both in combination with mating disruption and without it. Trunk inspections to determine whether mating disruption and barriers effectively reduced actual tree infestation showed pheromone disruption significantly reduced infestation compared with the untreated check, but was not as effective as trunk handgun sprays of chlorpyrifos. EVA trunk barriers were effective in preventing borer infestation compared with untreated trees. The elastomer did not differ from the check or the EVA treatment. There was no interaction between disruption and barrier treatments. Barrier field life and durability was assessed over 2 yr by comparing degradation over time due to weathering and other environmental effects including animal damage. The EVA persisted and remained more intact than the elastomer, but was in need of reapplication after 2 yr. Barriers were also screened for efficacy against voles in small-plot trials in nonorchard locations with known high vole pressure; they were tested either alone, combined with a repellent (thiram), or, in the case of the elastomer only, combined with an abrasive (sand). Only the EVA significantly lowered vole chewing damage relative to the untreated checks"
Keywords:Animals Arvicolinae/*physiology Insect Control/*methods Male Malus/growth & development Moths/*drug effects New York Pest Control/*methods Sex Attractants/*pharmacology;
Notes:"MedlineAgnello, Arthur M Kain, David P Gardner, Jeffrey Curtis, Paul D Ashdown, Michael L Hoffmann, Michael P eng Evaluation Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S. England 2014/07/17 J Econ Entomol. 2014 Jun; 107(3):1179-86. doi: 10.1603/ec14040"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 23-11-2024