Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:27:44.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biology, ecology, and management of dogwood borer in eastern apple orchards

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

J. Christopher Bergh  and
Tracy C. Leskey
J. Christopher Bergh*
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Alson H Smith, Jr, Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 595 Laurel Grove Road, Winchester, Virgina 22602, United States of America
Tracy C. Leskey
Affiliation:
USDA–ARS, Appalachian Fruit Research Station, 45 Wiltshire Road, Kearneysville, West Virginia 25430, United States of America
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dogwood borer, Synanthedon scitula (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae), has the broadest host range of the clearwing moths and is considered to be an economically important pest of many ornamental, fruit, and nut trees. Since the 1980s, dogwood borer has been recognized as an increasingly important, indirect pest of apple, Malus domestica Borkh. (Rosaceae), in eastern North America, owing mainly to increased plantings of apple on size-controlling rootstocks that promote the formation of adventitious root initials (burr knots) on the rootstock and scion. Burr knots appear to be preferred oviposition sites for dogwood borer females, although infestations can also be initiated in wounds, pruning cuts, and crotches on the branches and trunk. Larval feeding in burr knots does not adversely affect the growth and vigor of apple trees, but their mining outward from burr knots into vascular tissue can ultimately cause tree decline and death. Chlorpyrifos is the most effective insecticide for controlling dogwood borer. A supplemental label in the United States permits post-bloom, trunk drench applications of chlorpyrifos specifically for control of borers in apple, with several restrictions that preclude control of infestations higher in the tree. The ongoing review of pesticide tolerances dictated by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act of the United States of America makes the long-term availability of this chemical uncertain. Cultural practices, such as deeper planting or berming, can reduce the likelihood of infestation of new apple plantings by dogwood borer, although they do not preclude infestations from developing above the graft union. This review and discussion is based on our contention that research toward the development of alternative, behaviorally based management strategies for dogwood borer in apple and other economically important host plants is warranted. Our review and synthesis of the dogwood borer literature revealed important gaps in knowledge about basic aspects of its biology that pertain directly to the development of alternative control tactics based on behavioral manipulation. There is considerable confusion surrounding the sex pheromone of dogwood borer and conflicting results on the response of males to isomers and blends of isomers of its purported pheromone. Studies using sex attractants to monitor its phenology in apple and non-apple habitats have yielded discrepant results and conclusions. Differences in the effectiveness of commercially available pheromone lures for trapping dogwood borer have been reported and the ability of pheromone traps to accurately reflect emergence or population density remains in question. Regardless of pronounced differences in the duration and modality of the seasonal flight of dogwood borer among different geographical regions within its range, the conclusion of univoltinism across most of its range has been perpetuated, based on extremely limited developmental data collected exclusively from individuals that developed on dogwood.

Résumé

La sésie du cornouiller, Synanthedon scitula (Harris) (Lepidoptera : Sesiidae), est le sésiidé qui possède la gamme la plus étendue d'hôtes et elle est considérée comme un ravageur d'importance économique de plusieurs arbres d'ornement, arbres fruitiers et arbres à noix. Depuis les années 1980, la sésie du cornouiller est devenue un ravageur indirect, mais d'importance croissante, du pommier, Malus domesticus Borkh. (Rosaceae), dans l'est de l'Amérique du Nord à cause surtout de la pratique de plus en plus répandue de planter les pommiers sur des porte-greffe qui limitent leur taille et qui favorisent la formation de primordiums de racines adventices (broussins) sur le porte-greffe et sur le greffon. Les broussins semblent être les sites préférés de ponte des sésies du cornouiller, bien que les infestations puissent débuter dans les plaies, les coupures d'émondage et les fourches sur les branches et le tronc. L'alimentation des larves dans les broussins n'affecte de façon négative ni la croissance, ni la vigueur des pommiers, mais le déplacement des larves vers l'extérieur des broussins, dans le tissu vasculaire, peut en fin de compte causer le déclin et la mort de l'arbre. Le chlorpyrifos est l'insecticide le plus efficace pour contrôler la sésie du cornouiller. Une étiquette supplémentaire aux États-Unis d'Amérique permet l'application du chlorpyrifos après la floraison par imprégnation du tronc spécifiquement pour la lutte contre les sésies chez le pommier, mais plusieurs restrictions en défendent l'utilization pour le contrôle d'infestations plus haut dans l'arbre. La mise à jour continuelle des tolérances des pesticides ordonnée par la loi américaine de 1996 sur la protection de la qualité de la nourriture rend la disponibilité de ce produit chimique incertaine à long terme. Des pratiques culturales, telles que de planter les pommiers plus profondément ou d'entasser de la terre le long du tronc, peuvent réduire la probabilité de l'infestation de nouvelles plantations de pommiers par la sésie, bien qu'elles n'empêchent pas les infestations de se développer au-dessus du niveau de la greffe. Notre revue et notre discussion se justifient, croyons-nous, par la nécessité de chercher des stratégies de gestion de rechange, basées sur le comportement, pour faire la lutte à la sésie du cornouiller dans les pommeraies et dans les cultures d'autres plantes d'importance économique. Notre revue et synthèse de la littérature sur la sésie du cornouiller met en lumière d'importantes lacunes dans les connaissances biologiques fondamentales de l'insecte qui sont directement reliées à laconception de stratégies de lutte de rechange basées sur la manipulation des comportements. Il existe beaucoup de confusion au sujet de la phéromone sexuelle de la sésie du cornouiller et des résultats contradictoires sur la réaction des mâles aux isomères ou aux mélanges d'isomères de sa présumée phéromone. Des études qui ont utilizé des substances d'attraction sexuelle pour suivre la phénologie de l'insectes dans des habitats de pommeraies et d'autres milieux ont aussi produit des résultats et des conclusions contradictoires. Les pièges à phéromones disponibles dans le commerce pour capturer la sésie du cornouiller ont des efficacités variables et la capacité de ces pièges de refléter avec précision l'émergence et la densité de population reste à déterminer. Malgré des différences importantes dans la durée et la modalité du vol saisonnier de la sésie du cornouiller dans les différentes régions géographiques de sa répartition, on continue à lui attribuer un cycle univoltin sur presque toute son aire de répartition; ces conclusions se basent sur des données de développement extrêmement succinctes obtenues sur des insectes qui se sont développés sur des cornouillers.

[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 135 , Issue 5 , October 2003 , pp. 615 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2003

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

Alm, S.R., Williams, R.N., Pavuk, D.M., Snow, J.W., Heinlein, M.A. 1989. Distribution and seasonal flight activity of male grape root borers (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in Ohio. Journal of Economic Entomology 82: 1604–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Averill, A.L., Reissig, W.H., Roelofs, W.L. 1988. Specificity of olfactory responses in the teprhitid fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 47: 211–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayers, G.S. 1966. The bionomics of the dogwood borer, Thamnosphecia scitula (Harris), attacking blueberry in Michigan. MSc thesis, Michigan State University, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Barry, M.W., Nielsen, D.G., Purrington, F.F., Tumlinson, J.H. 1978. Attractancy of pheromone blends to male peachtree borer, Synanthedon exitiosa. Environmental Entomology 7: 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, J.C., Leskey, T.C. 2002. Dogwood borer field studies: preliminary data on seasonal phenology, monitoring and voltinism in Virginia and West Virginia. pp 23–30in Shearer, P.W. (Ed), Proceedings of the 77th Annual Cumberland—Shenandoah Fruit Workers Conference, Winchester, Virginia, 15–16 November 2001. Winchester, Virginia: Cumberland–Shenandoah Fruit WorkersGoogle Scholar
Bergh, J.C., Leskey, T.C. 2003. Refining the pheromone based monitoring system for dogwood borer. pp 69–75in Bergh, J.C. (Ed), Proceedings of the 78th Annual Cumberland–Shenandoah Fruit Workers Conference, Winchester, Virginia, 5–6 December 2002. Winchester, Virginia: Cumberland–Shenandoah Fruit WorkersGoogle Scholar
Bernays, E.A., Chapman, R.F. 1994. Host–plant selection by phytophagous insects. New York: Chapman and Hall, IncCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braxton, S.M., Raupp, M.J. 1995. An annotated checklist of clearwing borer pests of ornamental plants trapped using commercially available pheromone lures. Journal of Arboriculture 21: 177–80Google Scholar
Brown, M.W. 1999. Applying principles of community ecology to pest management in orchards. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 73: 103–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charmillot, P-J, Hofer, D., Pasquier, D. 2000. Attract and kill: a new method for control of codling moth Cydia pomonella. Entomologia, Experimentalis et Applicata 94: 211–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, J.V., Dickler, E. 1994. Guidelines for integrated production of pome fruits. Technical guidelines, III, 2nd edition. International Organization of Biological Control/West Palaearctic Region Section Bulletin 17: 1–12Google Scholar
Davidson, J.A., Gill, S.A. and Raupp, M.J. 1992. Controlling clearwing moths with entomopathogenic nematodes: the dogwood borer case study. Journal of Arboriculture 18: 81–4Google Scholar
Dean, R.W. 1969. Apple bark borer, Thamnosphecia pyri (Harris). New York Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 823: 22–3Google Scholar
Dickler, V.E. 1976. Zur Biologie und Schadwirkung von Synanthedon myopaeformis Brkh. (Lepid., Aegeriidae), einem neuen Schädling in Apfeldichtpfanzungen. Zeitschrift fuer Angewandte Entomologie 82: 259–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichlin, T.D., Duckworth, W.D. 1988. Sesioidea: Sesiidae. pp 1–176in Dominick, R.B. et al. (Eds), The moths of America north of Mexico. Fascicle 5.1. Washington, District of Columbia: Wedge Entomological Research FoundationGoogle Scholar
Eliason, E.A., Potter, D.A. 2000. Dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) infestation of horned oak galls. Journal of Economic Entomology 93: 757–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelhardt, G.P. 1932. Business proceedings of the eastern branch of the American Association of Economic Entomologists. Journal of Economic Entomology 25: 293–4Google Scholar
Foster, S.P., Harris, M.O. 1997. Behavioral manipulation methods for insect pest management. Annual Review of Entomology 42: 123–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, C.R., Wells, J.M. 1982. Evidence of an oviposition stimulant for peachtree borer. Journal of Chemical Ecology 8: 1125–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentry, C.R., Bierl-Leonhardt, B.A., McLaughlin, J.R., Plimmer, J.R. 1980. Air permeation tests with (Z,Z)-3,13- octadecadien-1-ol acetate for reduction in trap catch of peachtree and lesser peachtree borer moths. Journal of Chemical Ecology 7: 575–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, M.D., Karandinos, M.G. 1979. Reproductive isolation in Sesiidae: a niche analysis approach. pp 67–74in Pheromones of the Sesiidae. SEA-AR, ARR-NE-6. Washington, District of Columbia: United States Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Herrick, G.W. 1904. Insects injurious to pecans. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 86: 11–5Google Scholar
Howitt, A.H. 1993. Common tree fruit pests. Michigan State University, North Central Regional Extension Publication 63Google Scholar
Johnson, J.M. 1993. Flight, emergence, and oviposition patterns of the Douglas-fir pitch moth, Synanthedon novaroensis (Hy. Edwards) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae), in western Washington. MSc thesis, University of Washington, SeattleGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W.T., Lyon, H.H. 1991. Insects that feed on trees and shrubs. 2nd edition. Ithaca, New York: Comstock PressGoogle Scholar
Kain, D.P., Straub, R. 2001. Status of borers infesting apple burr knots and their management in New York orchards. New York Fruit Quarterly 9: 10–2Google Scholar
Kain, D.P., Straub, R., Agnello, A. 2002. Apple, evaluation of various trunk sprays to control borers infesting burr knots, 2001. Arthropod Management Tests 27: A42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kain, D.P., Straub, R., Agnello, A. 2003. Apple, evaluation of various trunk sprays to control borers infesting burr knots, 2002. Arthropod Management Tests. In pressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karandinos, M.G., Tumlinson, J.H., Eichlin, T.D. 1977. Field evidence of synergism and inhibition in the Sesiidae sex pheromone system. Journal of Chemical Ecology 3: 57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaya, H.K., Brown, L.R. 1986. Field application of entomogenous nematodes for biological control of clearwing moth borer in alder and sycamore trees. Journal of Arboriculture 12: 150–4Google Scholar
Koehler, C.S., Frankie, G.W., Moore, W.S., Landwehr, V.R. 1983. Relationship of infestation by the Sequoia pitch moth (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) to Monterey pine trunk injury. Environmental Entomology 12: 979–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupke, C.H., Roitberg, B.D., Judd, G.J.R. 2002. Field and laboratory bioassay of male codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to a pheromone based attract-and-kill strategy. Environmental Entomology 31: 189–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, M., Smith, R.F. 2001. Evaluation of last Call for codling moth (CM) management in Maritime apple orchards as an alternative to conventional pesticides. Annual Report to the Nova Scotia Fruit Growers Association 138: 33–41Google Scholar
Leskey, T.C., Bergh, J.C. 2002. Rearing methods for the dogwood borer, Synanthedon scitula (Harris). pp 31–32in Shearer, P.W. (Ed), Proceedings of the 77th Annual Cumberland–Shenandoah Fruit Workers Conference, Winchester, Virginia, 15–16 November 2001. Winchester, Virginia: Cumberland–Shenandoah Fruit WorkersGoogle Scholar
Leskey, T.C., Bergh, J.C. 2003. A simple character for sex differentiation of pupae and pupal exuviae of the dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae). Florida Entomologist 86: 379–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Light, D.M., Knight, A.L., Henrick, C.A., Rajapaska, D., Lingren, B., Dickens, J.C., Reynolds, K.M., Buttery, R.G., Merrill, G., Roitman, J., Campbell, B.C. 2001. A pear-derived kairomone with pheromonal potency that attracts male and female codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.). Naturwissenschaften 88: 333–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, L.A., Bedding, R.A. 1982. Field testing of the insect parasitic nematode, Neoaplectana bibioniz (Nematoda: Steinernematidae) against currant borer moth, Synanthedon tipuliformis (Lep.: Sesiidae) in blackcurrants. Entomophaga 27: 109–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, J.W. 1984. Bionomics and instar determination of Syanthedon rhododendri (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) on rhododenron. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 77: 552–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, D.G., Purrington, F.F., Tumlinson, J.H., Doolittle, R.E., Yonce, C.E. 1975. Response of male clearwing moths to caged virgin females, female extracts, and synthetic sex attractants. Environmental Entomology 4: 451–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, D.G., Purrington, F.F., Shanbaugh, G.F. 1979. EAG and field responses of sesiid males to sex pheromones and related compounds. pp 11–26in Pheromones of the Sesiidae. SEA-AR, ARR-NE-6. Washington, District of Columbia: United States Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Owen, N.P., Sadof, C.S., Raupp, M.J. 1991. The effect of plastic tree wrap on borer incidence in dogwood. Journal of Arboriculture 17: 29–31Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, D.G., Killian, J.C. 1999. Dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) flight activity and an attempt to control damage in ‘Gala’ apples using mating disruption. Journal of Entomological Science 34: 210–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeiffer, D.G., Killian, J.C., Rajotte, E.G., Hull, L.A., Snow, J.W. 1991. Mating disruption for reduction of damage of lesser peachtree borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in Virginia and Pennsylvania peach orchards. Journal of Economic Entomology 84: 218–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, W.C., Nickels, C.B. 1941. Control of borers on recently top-worked pecan trees. Journal of Economic Entomology 31: 522–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pless, C.D., Stanley, W.W. 1967. Life history and habits of the dogwood borer, Thamnosphecia scitula (Lepidoptera:Aegeriidae) in Tennessee. Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station 42: 117–123Google Scholar
Potter, D.A., Timmons, G.M. 1981. Factors affecting predisposition of flowering dogwood trees to attack by the dogwood borer. Hortscience 16: 677–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, D.A., Timmons, G.M. 1983. Flight phenology of the dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) and implications for control in Cornus florida L. Journal of Economic Entomology 76: 1069–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, D.K., Mikolajczak, K.L., Krause, C.R. 1988. Ovipositional behavior of lesser peachtree borer in presence of host-plant volatiles. Journal of Chemical Ecology 14: 237–2CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riedl, H., Weires, R.W., Seaman, A., Hoying, S.A. 1985. Seasonal biology and control of the dogwood borer, Synanthedon scitula (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) on clonal apple rootstocks in New York. The Canadian Entomologist 117: 1367–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocchini, L.A. 1997. Variation in lodgepole pine susceptibility to pitch moth (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae and Pyralidae) attack at the Prince George tree improvement station. MSc thesis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince GeorgeGoogle Scholar
Rocchini, L.A., Lindgren, B.S., RG, Bennett. 2000. Effects of resin flow and monoterpene composition on susceptibility of lodgepole pine to attack by the Douglas-fir pitch moth, Syanthedon novaroensis (Lep., Sesiisae). Journal of Applied Entomology 124: 87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L.E., Grant, J.F. 1990. Infestation levels of dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) larvae on dogwood trees in selected habitats in Tennessee. Journal of Entomological Science 25: 481–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, L.E., Grant, J.F. 1991. Seasonal incidence of male dogwood borer (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) and other species of clearwing moths in selected habitats in Tennessee. Environmental Entomology 20: 520–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rom, R.C. 1970. Burr knot observations on clonal apple rootstocks in Arkansas. Fruit Varieties Horticultural Digest 24: 66–8Google Scholar
Rom, R.C. 1973. Burr knot characteristics of six clonal apple rootstocks. Fruit Varieties Journal 27: 84–6Google Scholar
Rom, R.C., Brown, S.A. 1979. Factors affecting burr knot formation on clonal Malus rootstocks. Hortscience 14: 231–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, J.W., Eichlin, T.D., Tumlinson, J.M. 1985. Seasonal captures of clearwing moths (Sesiidae) in traps baited with various formulations of 3,13-octadecadienyl actetate and alcohol. Journal of Agricultural Entomology 2: 73–84Google Scholar
Snow, J.W., Schwarz, M., Klun, J.A. 1987. The attraction of the grape root borer, Vitacea polistiformis (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae), to (E,Z)-2,13-octadecadienyl acetate and the effects of related isomers on attraction. Journal of Entomological Science 4: 371–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, J.W., Schwarz, M., Eichlin, T.D. 1989. Captures of clearwing moths (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) with various octadecadienyl acetates and alcohols in central Georgia during 1983–1985. Environmental Entomology 18: 216–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, J.W., Johnson, D.T., Meyer, J.R. 1991. The seasonal occurrence of the grape root borer, (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) in the eastern United States. Journal of Entomological Science 26: 157–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suckling, D.M., Brockerhoff, E.G. 1999. Control of light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) using an attracticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 92: 367–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, W.H., Smitley, D., Snow, J.W. 1991. A guide to the clearwing borers (Sesiidae) of the north central United States. Michigan State University, North Central Regional Extension Publication 394Google Scholar
Tumlinson, J.H. 1979. The chemistry of Sesiidae pheromones. pp 1–10in Pheromones of the Sesiidae. SEA-AR, ARR-NE-6. Washington, District of Columbia: United States Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
Tumlinson, J.H., Yonce, C.E., Doolittle, R.E., Heath, R.R., Gentry, C.R., Mitchell, E.R. 1974. Sex pheromones and reproductive isolation of the lesser peachtree borer and the peachtree borer. Science (Washington, DC) 185: 614–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Underhill, G.W. 1935. The pecan tree borer in dogwood. Journal of Economic Entomology 28: 393–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, J.H. 1986. Host odor perception in phytophagous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 91: 840–4Google Scholar
Wallace, P.P. 1945. Biology and control of the dogwood borer, Synanthedon scitula Harris. Connecticut Experiment Station Bulletin 488: 373–95Google Scholar
Walton, G.S. 1986. Association of dogwood borer with the recent decline of dogwood. Journal of Arboriculture 12: 196–8Google Scholar
Warner, J., Hay, S. 1985. Observations, monitoring, and control of clearwing borers (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) on apple in central Ontario. The Canadian Entomologist 117: 1471–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weires, R. 1986. Five years research and experience with control of dogwood borer and related burr knot problems. Compact Fruit Tree 19: 86–9Google Scholar
Williams, D.B., Witte, W.T., Hadden, C.H., Williams, H.W. 1985. The flowering dogwood in Tennessee. Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service Publication 589Google Scholar
Williams, R.N., Fickle, D.S., Grewal, P.S., Meyer, J.R. 2002. Assessing the potential of entomopathogenic nematodes to control the grape root borer Vitacea polistiformis (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) through laboratory and greenhouse bioassays. Biocontrol, Science, and Technology 12: 35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wise, J.C., Gut, L.J. 2002. Trunk sprays for control of dogwood borer, 2000–2001. Arthropod Management Tests 27: A56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodside, A.M. 1952. The apple bark borer. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 452Google Scholar
Young, E., Tyler, R.H. 1983. Burrknot control on apple. Hortscience 18: 921–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, A., Linn, C.E., Wright, S.E., Prokopy, R.J., Reissig, W.H., Roelofs, W.L. 1999. Identification of a new blend of apple volatiles attractive to the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella. Journal of Chemical Ecology 25: 1221–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar