Codling Moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lep.:Tortricidae) Control by Mating Disruption Method by Synthetic Pheromones in Khorasan Razavi Province

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Hashem Kamali ¹
• Raoof Koliaei ²
• M. Taghadosi ³

¹ Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

² Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Tehran, Iran

³ Zanjan Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

10.22067/jpp.v30i4.50725

Abstract

Introduction: Codling moth, Cydia pomonella is one of the key pests of apple in Khorasan Razavi province which annually causes severe fruit damage to apple crop. There are several ways that are used to control and prevent injury to apple products in the world. The most successful and widespread use of pheromones has been in monitoring traps. Mating disruption method by pheromones takes place when enough artificial sources of pheromone are placed in the area that the chance of finding a female by a male is high. Mating, and laying viable eggs is reduced below the point where economically significant damage occurs. Large-scale mating disruption implementation trials have yielded significant reduction in pesticide use while keeping crop damage levels acceptably low. Mating disruption works best if large areas are treated with the pheromones. Currently, chemical control is the most common method of the pest control by using insecticides. In this research, with the goal of eliminating codling moth and minimizing the use of chemical compounds on the apple fruits, the ability of artificial sex pheromones in controlling the codling moth based on mating disruption method was investigated and compared with chemical control in Ghochan County, Khorasan-e-Razavi Province, Iran, in 2013.
Materials and Methods: The experiments were conducted in 20 replicates based on a CRB design. The treatments were mating disruption with pheromone dispensers mating disruption + chemical control and chemical control based on the local method. Adult moth was sampled using Delta traps with a sticky insert. 1000 pheromone, which is a two-strand wire rod was produced has been installed on trees per hectare. Pheromones were installed before the first appearance of male moths. 20 to 25 days after each pest generation, randomly 25 fruits were selected and recorded from different directions and heights base on healthy and infected fruits.
Results and Discussion: The mating disruption system against the moths that devastate the crops is a portion of the global crop protection policy. The greatest number of insects captured were recorded in spraying treatments which were significantly different compared to the other treatments. The difference between treatments was significant in codling moths population and the percentage of infected fruits (p≤0.01). The lowest percentage of infected fruit was in to mating disruption treatment and mating disruption treatments + custom spraying treatment. The highest rate of infected fruit was observed in conventional spraying treatment that represents this treatment had less power for controlling the pest. Mating disruption and mating disruption + chemical control had the most effect on reducing the pest population and number of infested fruits with a significant difference compared to the chemical control. Codling moth was peak flight with three points. Mating disruption treatment and the disturbing + spraying during the growing season had the best controling on the pest population compared to the conventional treatment. Mating disruption is the most effective method when the pest population densities are low to moderate level. It has also been identified as a pest control method in which the insect does not become resistant. Conventional pesticide based control methods kills insects directly, whereas the mating disruption method confuses male insects from accurately locating a mating partner, leading to the eventual collapse of the mating cycle. Mating disruption, due to the specificity of the sex pheromone of the insect species, has the benefit of only affecting the males of that species, while leaving other non-target species unaffected. This allows for targeted pest management, promoting the suppression of a single pest species, leaving the populations of beneficial insects (pollinators and natural enemies) intact.
Conclusion: Mating disruption method is considered to be the most environmentally friendly strategy in pest management and control. Pest management programs that use pheromones are generally thought to be most effective methods in controlling low to moderate levels of pest densities. The mating disruption method has a number of advantages such as uses possible in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and in organic farming, no direct lethal effect on the pests, the method is not destructive, the targeted pest is maintained at a level which is harmless and allows biodiversity, the risk of resistance is low because the main components of the natural pheromone blend are present, strict preventive method, by interrupting the reproduction cycle of the pest before any damage is done, only one application of the dispensers is necessary at the beginning of the season, the method allows a reduction of the number of spray. In this research, suppressing the codling moth population during its first and second generation was effective by the pheromone treatment. In the third generation, however, this effect was reduced probably due to the loss of pheromone in the environment.

Keywords

• Codling Moth
• Khorasan Razavi
• Mating Disruption
• Sex Pheromone
• Trap

20.1001.1.20084749.1395.30.4.6.2

---

References

1- Alston D.G., and Lindstorm T. 2003. Codling moth control in apple. Proceeding of the 77th Annual western orchard Pest & Diseases Management Conference, Portland, Washington.

2- Askari H., and Hasani Moghaddam M. 2010. Strategic research development plan of plant protection researches, challenges, applications and solutions. Iranian Research Institute of Iran, 429 pages. (In Persian with English abstract).

3- Barnes M.M., and Moffitt H.R. 1963. Resistance to D.D.T in the adult codling moth and reference curves for guzathion and carbaryl. Journal of Economic Entomology. 56: 722-725.

4- Carde R.T., Baker T.C., and Castrovillo P.J. 1997. Disruption of sexual communication in Laspeyresia pomonella (codling moth), Grapholitha molesta (oriental fruit moth) and G. prunivora (lesser apple worm) with hollow fiber attractant sources. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata. 22: 280-288.

5- Charmillot P.J., Hofer D., and Pasquier D. 2000. Attract and kill: a new method for control of the codling moth Cydia pomonella. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 94: 211-216.

6- Croft B.A., and Riedl H.W. 1991. Chemical control and resistance to pesticides of the codling moth. In: Van der Geest and Evenhuis (eds.), World crop pest. Tortricid pests: Their biology, Natural enemies and control. 5: pp. 453-472.

7- Dastgheib Beheshti N. 1985. Determination of fighting time against the codling moth in Isfahan with the use of pheromone traps. Journal of plant pests & diseases. 48 (1): 97-101. (In Persian with English abstract).

8- Hussaina B., Ahmadb B., and Bilala S. 2015. Monitoring and Mass Trapping of the Codling Moth, Cydia pomonella, by the use of Pheromone Baited Traps in Kargil, Ladakh, India. International Journal of Fruit Scienc, 15(1):1-9.

9- Granger K.R., Brunneer J.F., and Doerr M.D. 2003. Managing codling moth with new insecticides: Assail, Interpid and Success. Proceeding of the 77th Annual Western orchard pest& Diseases Management Conference, Portland, Washington.

10- Gut L.J. 1996. Implementing codling moth mating disruption in Washington pome fruit orchards. Washington State University tree fruit research and extension center, No.1. 8 p.

11- Javad Zadeh M., Pour Haji A., and Kolyaee R. 2002. Effect of several new insecticides in codling moth control (Cydia pomonella L) in Iran. Proceeding of the 15th International Congress of Plant protection. University of Kermanshah. (In Persian with English abstract).

12- Kolyaee R. 2011. Evaluation of the insecticide Diflubenzuron (Dimilin SC 48%) in the control of codling moth. The final report of the research project, Iranian Research Institute of plant protection. 22 p. (In Persian with English abstract).

13- Kolyaee R., Akbarzadeh G., and Koorosh Nejad E. 2005. Review of several new insecticides in codling moth control. The final report of the research project, Iranian Research Institute of plant protection. 22 pp. (In Persian with English abstract).

14- Kolyaee R., Grease G., Sasaerila Y., Daroghe H., and Avand Faghih A. 2007. Evaluation of Attract and Kill method in damage control of quince moth Euzophera bigella Z. (Lep.: Phycitidae) and codling moth Cydia pomonella (Lep .: Olethreutidae) on quince orchards. The final report of the research project, Iranian Research Institute of plant protection. 23 pp. (In Persian with English abstract).

15- Kolyaee R., Kamali H., Avand Faghih A., Grease G., Sasaerila Y., and Darooghe H. 2006. Evaluation of Attract and Kill method in damage control of codling moth Cydia pomonella (Lep .: Olethreutidae) on apple orchards. The final report of the research project, Iranian Research Institute of plant protection. 23 pp. (In Persian with English abstract).

16- Murray M. 2010. Codling moth mating disruption. Utah pests fact sheet, No. 1, Utah University Extention, USA, 5p.

17- Riedl H. 1995. First results of studies on resistance of codling moth to diflubenzuron. Review of Agricultural Entomology. 83(7): 762.

18- Statistical annual review of Razavi Khorasan agricultural section. 2012. Agricultural Jihad organization of Khorasan Razavi, Vice President of planning and Economic Affairs, the office of agricultural statistics and information. 219 pp. (In Persian).

19- Thwaite G.G.W., and Nicol H. 1999. Field evaluation of the effects of insect growth regulator Tebufenizide on entomophagous arthropods and pests of apples. Australian Journal of Entomology. 38 (2): 135.

20- Valera L.G., Welter S.C., Jones V.P., Brunner J.F., and Riedl H. 1993. Monitoring and characterization of insecticide resistance in codling moth (Lep. Torticidae) in four western states. Journal of Economic Entomology. 86(1): 1-10.