Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:01:30.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Field evaluation of a slow release pheromone formulation to control the American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

D.J. Chamberlain ,
N.J. Brown ,
O.T. Jones  and
E. Casagrande
D.J. Chamberlain*
Affiliation:
227 Manwood Road, Crofton Park, London, SE4 1SF, UK
N.J. Brown
Affiliation:
AgriSense-BCS Ltd, Treforest Industrial Estate, Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, CF37 5SU, UK
O.T. Jones
Affiliation:
AgriSense-BCS Ltd, Treforest Industrial Estate, Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, CF37 5SU, UK
E. Casagrande
Affiliation:
AgriSense-BCS Ltd, Treforest Industrial Estate, Pontypridd, Mid Glamorgan, CF37 5SU, UK
*
*Fax: 44 181 690 1424 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Trials to control the American bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) by the technique of mating disruption were carried out in the Pakistan Province of Punjab during the 1996 cotton season. A slow release PVC resin formulation, Selibate®HA, containing a 97:3 mixture of the major (9Z-hexadecenal) and minor (11Z-hexadecenal) components of the female sex pheromone of H. armigera was applied at a rate of 40 g active ingredient ha−1 during August 1996. The formulation was applied around the terminal portion of the cotton plant by hand using local labour at a rate of c. 250 pieces per hectare. The efficacy of the formulation was compared to conventional insecticide regimes to control H. armigera on four farmer practice fields situated at least 1 km to the north, south, east and west of the pheromone treated area. A high degree of trap catch shutdown (indicating mating suppression) was observed throughout the pheromone treated area during the whole of the season compared to non-pheromone treated farmer practice fields. Night observations confirmed that mating disruption occurred in the pheromone treated area as a smaller percentage of mated females were collected from this area compared to farmer practice fields. A majority of mated females collected from the pheromone treated area mated only once, whereas females in farmer practice fields had undergone multiple matings. A greater percentage of tethered female H. armigera moths retrieved from farmer practice fields had successfully mated compared to tethered females retrieved from the pheromone treated area. Release rate data of H. armigera pheromone from the formulation show that c. 70% was released during the two month trial period. However, the highly dispersive pre-oviposition flight behaviour of females meant that the area treated was not sufficient to eliminate the problem of gravid females migrating in from surrounding areas, and ovipositing therein. The implications of using the technique of mating disruption to control large strong flying insects like H. armigera are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 90 , Issue 3 , June 2000 , pp. 183 - 190
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmad, M. & McCaffery, A.R. (1988) Resistance to insecticides in a Thailand strain of Heliothis armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 81, 45–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, M., Arif, M.I. & Ahmad, Z. (1995) Monitoring insecticide resistance of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Pakistan. Journal of Economic Entomology 88, 771–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armes, N.J. & Cooter, R.J. (1991) Effects of age and mated status on flight potential of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Physiological Entomology 16, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armes, N.J., Jadhav, D.R., Bond, G.S. & King, A.B.S. (1992) Insecticide resistance in Helicoverpa armigera in South India. Pesticide Science 34, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, K.O. & Whitcomb, W.H. (1962) Efficiency of egg predators of the bollworm. Arkansas Farm Research 11, 9.Google Scholar
Bulyginskaya, M.A., Grichanov, I.Y. & Shamshev, I.V. (1989) Use of synthetic sex attractants for disturbance of the olfactory communication of adults of the cotton moth Heliothis armigera Hb. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in field conditions. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie 68, 272–275.Google Scholar
Chaudhry, N.A., Ansari, M.A. & Tariq, A.H. (1987) Pest scouting and production of cotton crop. Pakistan Agriculture, September Issue, 49–51.Google Scholar
Cork, A., Hall, D.R., Mullins, J.L. & Jones, O.T. (1989) A new PVC resin formulation for controlled release of insect pheromones. Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Controlled Released of Bioactive MaterialsChicagoAugust 6–9 1989.Google Scholar
Drake, V.A. & Fitt, G.P. (1990) Studies of Heliothis mobility at Narrabri, 1989/90. pp. 295–304in Proceedings of the Fifth Australian Cotton ConferenceBroadbeach, QueenslandAustralian Cotton Growers Research Association, Brisbane.Google Scholar
Ernst, G.H. & Dittrich, V. (1992) Comparative measurements of resistance to insecticides in three closely-related Old and New World bollworm species. Pesticide Science 34, 147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R.K. & Thomas, F.L. (1943) Natural control of eggs and first instar larvae of Heliothis armigera. Journal of Economic Entomology 36, 557–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrester, N.W., Cahill, M., Bird, L.J. & Layland, J.K. (1993) Management of pyrethroid and endosulfan resistance in Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia. Bulletin of Entomological Research. Supplement Series 1, 132.Google Scholar
Gunning, R.V., Easton, C.S., Greenup, L.R. & Edge, V.E. (1984) Synthetic pyrethroid resistance in Heliothis armigera (Hübner) in Australia. Journal of Economic Entomology 77, 1283–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassan, S.T. (1978) Distribution and abundance of Heliothis eggs and larvae on cotton plants. pp. 54–56 in Progress report on research into the control of cotton pests. July 1977–June 1978. Integrated Pest Management Unit, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Horowitz, A.R., Seligman, I.M., Forer, G., Bar, D. & Ishaaya, I. (1993) Preventive insecticide resistance strategy in Helicoverpa (Heliothis) armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Israeli cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology 86, 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, I.R. (1977) Insecticide resistance in Heliothis armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in areas of Queensland, Australia. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 16, 43–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lingren, P.D., Ridgway, R.L. & Jones, S.L. (1968) Consumption by several common arthropod predators of eggs and larvae by two Heliothis species that attack cotton. Journal of Economic Entomology 61, 613–618.Google Scholar
Mabbett, T.H., Dareepat, P., Nachapong, N. & Wangboonkang, S. (1979) Studies into the feeding, distribution and movement of the American bollworm, Heliothis armigera (Hübner). Thailand Journal of Agricultural Science 12, 115–122.Google Scholar
McCaffery, A.R. & Walker, A.W. (1993) Insecticide resistance in the bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera from Indonesia. Pesticide Science 32, 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCaffery, A.R., King, A.B.S., Walker, A.W. & El-Nayer, H. (1989) Resistance to synthetic pyrethroids in the bollworm, Heliothis armigera from Andhra Pradesh, India. Pesticide Science 27, 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, E.O. (1958) The insect pests of cotton in tropical Africa. 355pp. Empire Cotton Growing Corporation and Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London.Google Scholar
Riley, J.R., Armes, N.J., Reynolds, D.R. & Smith, A.D. (1992) Nocturnal observations on the emergence and flight behaviour of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the post-rainy season in central India. Bulletin of Entomological Research 82, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripper, W.E. & George, L. (1965) Cotton pests of the Sudan. pp 154–167. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Schaefer, G.W. (1976) Radar observations of insect flight. pp.157–197in Rainey R.C. (Ed.) Insect flight symposium. Royal Entomological Society, London. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Shamshev, I.V., Bosenko, M.S., Pershina, E.V., Vilesova, M.S. & Sanonoz, A.P. (1988) Influence of microencapsulated sex pheromone on flight of males of Heliothis armigera into pheromone traps. Feromony nasekomykh I razrabotka putei ikh prakticheskogo ispol'zovaniya, 94–101.Google Scholar
Stam, P.A. and El-Mosa, H. (1990) The role of predators and parasites in controlling populations of Earias insulana, Heliothis armigera and Bemisia tabaci on cotton in the Syrian Arab Republic. Entomophaga 35, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uthamasamy, S. (1992) Spatial distribution of eggs and larvae of Heliothis armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on four species of cotton, Gossypium spp. (Malvaceae). Phytophaga 4, 19–27.Google Scholar
Whitcomb, W.H. & Bell, K.O. (1964) Predaceous insects, spiders and mites of Akansas cotton fields. University of Akansas Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 690, 84.Google Scholar
Xia, J. (1993) Status and management of insecticide resistance of cotton insect pests in China. pp. 1052–1055in Proceedings, Beltwide Cotton Conference, 2, 10–14 January 1993. National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, Tennessee.Google Scholar