Researches on Population Ecology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 239–247 | Cite as

Models for mating disruption by means of pheromone for insect pest control

  • Hugh J. Barclay
  • Gary J. R. Judd
Original Paper

Abstract

Models are presented to investigate the population dynamic behavior of a pest population with the release of pheromone for mating disruption. Three mechanisms of mating disruption are considered: (i) confusion of males, (ii) competition with female pheromone trails yielding false trail following, (iii) emigration of males prior to mating. In addition, several refinements to confusion are considered. Confusion and emigration of males were found to be very similar both quantitatively and dynamically; also, a combination of both mechanisms was very little more efficient than either one separately. False trail following is difficult to compare with the other two, since competition with wild females is involved and thus the total population size enters the equations. Density dependence of the action of pheromones results in some cases in which mating disruption cannot control the pest population. Similarly, aggregation of the pest population decreases the efficiency of the method unless the pheromone action is density independent. Delayed mating of females makes control easier, and may constitute one mechanism for mating disruption.

Key words

pheromone mating disruption model pest control 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barclay, H. J. (1984) Pheromone trapping models for pest control: effects of mating patterns and immigration.Res. Popul. Ecol. 26: 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barclay, H. J. (1992a) Modelling the effects of population aggregation on the efficiency of insect pest control.Res. Popul. Ecol. 34: 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barclay, H. J. (1992b) Combining methods of insect pest control: partitioning mortality and predicting complementarity.Res. Popul. Ecol. 34: 91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barclay, H. J. and P. van den Driessche (1983) Pheromone trapping models for insect pest control.Res. Popul. Ecol. 25: 105–115.Google Scholar
  5. Bartell, R. J. (1982) Mechanisms of communication disruption by pheromone in the control of Lepidoptera: a review.Physiol. Entomol. 7: 353–364.Google Scholar
  6. Boswell, M. and G. P. Patil (1970) Chance mechanisms generating the negative binomial distributions. pp. 3–22In G. P. Patil (ed.)Random counts in models and structures. The Penn. State Univ. Press, University Park, Penn.Google Scholar
  7. Carde, R. T. and A. K. Minks (1995) Control of moth pests by mating disruption: successes and constraints.Annu. Rev. Entomol. 40: 559–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Critchley, B. R., D. G. Campion, L. J. McVeigh, P. Hunter-Jones, D. R. Hall, A. Cork, B. F. Nesbitt, G. J. Marrs, A. R. Jutsum, M. M. Hosny, and E- S. A. Nasr (1983) Control of pink bollworm,Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae), in Egypt by mating disrption using an aerially applied microencapsulated pheromone formulation.Bull. Entomol. Res. 73: 289–299.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, P. E., L. C. Brimacombe, L. J. McVeigh and A. Dignan, (1980) Laboratory experiments on the disruption of mating in the Egyptian cotton leafwormSpodoptera littoralis (Biosduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by excess of female pheromones.Bull. Entomol. Res. 70: 673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hendricks, D. E., C. T. Perez and R. J. Guerra (1982) Disruption ofHeliothis spp. mating behavior with chemical sex attractant components.Environ. Entomol. 11: 859–866.Google Scholar
  11. Kiritani, K. and M. Kanoh (1984) Influence of delay in mating on the reproduction of the oriental tea tortrix,Homona magnanima diakonoff (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), with reference to pheromone-based control.Prot. Ecol. 6: 137–144.Google Scholar
  12. Lotka, A. (1956)Elements of mathematical biology. Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Nakasuji, F. and K. Fujita (1980) A population model to assess the effect of sex pheromones on population suppression.Appl. Entomol. Zool. 15: 27–35.Google Scholar
  14. Niwa, C. G., G. E. Daterman, C. Sartwell and L. L. Sower (1988) Control ofRhyacionia zozana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by mating disruption with synthetic sex pheromone.Environ. Entomol. 17: 593–595.Google Scholar
  15. Palaniswamy, P., R. J. Ross, W. D. Seabrook, G. C. Lonergan, C. J. Wiesner, S. H. Tan and P. J. Silk (1982) Mating suppression of caged Spruce Budworm (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) moths in different pheromone atmospheres and high population densities.J. Econ. Entomol. 75: 989–993.Google Scholar
  16. Pielou, E. C. (1969)An introduction to mathematical ecology. J. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Sartwell, C., G. E. Daterman, D. L. Overhulser and L. L. Sower (1983) Mating disruption of western pine shoot borer (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) with widely spaced releasers of synthetic pheromone.J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 1148–1151.Google Scholar
  18. Schwalbe, C. P., E. C. Paszek, B. A. Bierl-Leonhardt and J. R. Plimmer (1983) Disruption of gypsy moth (Lepidotera: Lymantriidae) mating with disparlure.J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 841–844.Google Scholar
  19. Sower, L. L., J. M. Wenz, D. L. Dahlsten and G. E. Daterman (1990) Field testing of pheromone disruption on preoutbreak populations of Douglas-fir tussock moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae).J Econ. Entomol. 83: 1487–1491.Google Scholar
  20. Van Steenwyk, R. A. and E. R. Oatman (1983) Mating disruption of tomato pinworm (Lepidopetra: Gelechiidae) as measured by pheromone trap, foliage, and fruit infestation.J. Econ. Entomol. 76: 80–84.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Population Ecology 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hugh J. Barclay
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gary J. R. Judd
    • 3
  1. 1.Pacific Forestry CentreVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  3. 3.Agriculture Canada, Research StationSummerlandCanada

Personalised recommendations