Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T19:20:55.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PRE-MATING SEXUAL ACTIVITY OF GYPSY MOTH MALES IN SMALL PLOT FIELD TESTS (LYMANTRIA (= PORTHETRIA) DISPAR (L.): LYMANTRIIDAE)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

J. V. Richerson ,
E. A. Brown  and
E. Alan Cameron
J. V. Richerson
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
E. A. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
E. Alan Cameron
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pre-mating behavior of male gypsy moths was investigated in 0.2 ha circular plots containing from 0 to 72 virgin females/plot in untreated areas and in areas treated with an aerial application of 20 g/ha microencapsulated disparlure. Male moths in both treated and untreated plots oriented initially to trees, not directly to females. Mating was disrupted in treated plots but males continued search behavior. No anemotactic behavior was evident in either treated plots or untreated plots with females. In untreated plots, male moths were not caught on sticky panels (panels suspended at 2, 4, and 6 m) higher than pheromone baited traps set at 2 m. In treated plots, equal number of males were caught at all panel heights and in baited traps at 2 m. Previous mating and pheromone exposure histories of males did not affect the response of these males to traps baited with 4–5 mg of disparlure in untreated plots. In a test of the relative attractiveness of a cotton wick and a new laminated bait dispenser in Johnson traps, traps baited with the laminated dispenser had a greater male moth catch/male contact to trap than the traps baited with the cotton wick. Not all males contacting the Johnson trap were caught. A mode of action for disparlure as a disruptive agent in the long range sexual communication system of gypsy moth is proposed.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 108 , Issue 4 , April 1976 , pp. 439 - 448
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1976

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

Adler, V. E. et al. 1972. Electroantennograms and field attraction of the gypsy moth sex attractant and related compounds. J. econ. Ent. 65: 679–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beroza, M. et al. 1971. Activity and persistence of synthetic and natural sex attractants of the gypsy moth in laboratory and field trials. J. econ. Ent. 64: 1499–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beroza, M. and Knipling, E. F.. 1972. Gypsy moth control with the sex attractant pheromone. Science (Wash., D.C.) 177: 19–77.Google Scholar
Beroza, M. et al. 1973. Pre- and post-season field tests with disparlure, the sex pheromone of the gypsy moth, to prevent mating. Environ. Ent. 2: 1051–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beroza, M. et al. 1974 a. Tests of a 3-layer laminated plastic bait dispenser for controlled emission of attractants from insect traps. Environ. Ent. 3: 926–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beroza, M. et al. 1974 b. Large field trials with microencapsulated sex pheromone to prevent mating of the gypsy moth. J. econ. Ent. 67: 659–664.Google ScholarPubMed
Boller, E. 1972. Behavioral aspects of mass-rearing of insects. Entomophaga 17: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossert, W. H. and Wilson, E. O.. 1963. The analysis of olfactory communication among animals. J. theoret. Biol. 5: 443–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cameron, E. A. et al. 1974. Disruption of gypsy moth mating with microencapsulated disparlure. Science (Wash., D.C.) 183: 972–973.Google Scholar
Farkas, S. R. and Shorey, H. H.. 1974. Mechanisms of orientation to a distant pheromone source, pp. 81–95. In Birch, M. C. (Ed.), Pheromones. Elsevier North-Holland Publ. Co., London.Google Scholar
Kassang, G. et al. 1974. Uptake of the sex atrractant 3H-disparlure by male gypsy moth antennae (Lymantria dispar) [= Porthetria dispar]. Experientia 30: 147–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, J. V. and Cameron, E. A.. 1974. Differences in pheromone release and sexual behavior between laboratory-reared and wild gypsy moth adults. Environ. Ent. 3: 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, J. V. et al. 1976. Sexual activity of the gypsy moth. Am. Midl. Nat. (In press).Google Scholar
Schwalbe, C. P. et al. 1974. Field tests of microencapsulated disparlure for suppression of mating among wild and laboratory-reared gypsy moths. Environ. Ent. 3: 589–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shorey, H. H. 1972. Use of pheromones in pest control. Proc. N. cent. Brch ent. Soc. Am. 27: 30–34.Google Scholar
Stark, R. S. et al. 1974. Determination of mating and fertility of female gypsy moths. J. econ. Ent. 67: 296–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stevens, L. J. and Beroza, M.. 1972. Mating-inhibition field tests using disparlure, the synthetic gypsy moth sex pheromone. J. econ. Ent. 65: 1090–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weseloh, R. M. 1972. Field responses of gypsy moths and some parasitoids to colored surfaces. Ann. ent. Soc. Am. 65: 742–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar