Kairomonal Response of Predators to Three Pine Bast Scale Sex Pheromones

  • M. Branco
  • M. Lettere
  • J. C. Franco
  • A. Binazzi
  • H. Jactel


The kairomonal activity of the sex pheromones of three pine bast scales, Matsucoccus feytaudi, Matsucoccus josephi, and Matsucoccus matsumurae, as well as a new analog of the M. feytaudi sex pheromone, were investigated in pine forests of France, Portugal, and Italy. The response of the maritime pine bast scale predators, Elatophilus spp. and Hemerobius stigma, was used to test the influence of trapping methods, kairomone composition, and dose. Both predators showed significant attraction to all compounds except to the sex pheromone of M. josephi. Significant increase in captures was observed as a function of dose, and within the studied dose range, up to 2200 μg, no threshold saturation limits were observed for any of the attractive compounds. Trap design and size did not significantly influence predator captures, except for high population levels of Elatophilus crassicornis, when plate traps were more efficient than delta traps. Geographic variations were found in the kairomonal responses patterns of both predators, with the M. matsumurae sex pheromone being more attractive to the oriental populations from Corsica and Italy, whereas the western populations in Aquitaine and Portugal were more attracted to the M. feytaudi sex pheromone.


Pine bast scales Matsucoccidae Sex pheromone Kairomone Elatophilus spp. Hemerobius stigma Predators Trap design Dose response 



We are grateful for the field assistance of Elsa Borges, Manuel Cariano, and Pierre Menassieu. We thank the referees and Zvi Mendel (Volcani Center) for critical comments on earlier versions. The work was partly supported by the Commission of the European Communities (FAIR) within the specific RTD program, Contract CT97-3440, “PHOCUS.” The present paper does not necessarily reflect the Commission's views and in no way anticipates the Commission's future policy on the matter.


  1. Anderbrant, O., Lofqvist, J., Hogberg, H. E., Hedenstrom, E., Baldassari, N., Baronio, P., Kolmakova, G., Lyons, B., Naito, T., Odinokov, V., Simandl, J., Supatashvili, A., Tai, A., and Tourianov, R. 2000. Geographic variation in the field response of male European pine sawflies, Neodiprion sertifer, to different pheromone stereoisomers and esters. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 95:229–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakke, A. and Kvamme, T. 1981. Kairomone response in Thanasimus predators to pheromone components of Ips typographus. J. Chem. Ecol. 7:305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boo, K. S., Chung, I. B., Han, K. S., Pickett, J. A., and Wadhams, L. J. 1998. Response of the lacewing Chrysopa cognita to pheromone of its aphid prey. J. Chem. Ecol. 24:631–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Branco, M., Jactel, H., Silva, E. B., Binazzi, A., and Mendel, Z. 2004. Effect of trap design, trap size and pheromone dose on male capture of two pine bast scales species (Hemiptera: Matsucoccidae): implications for monitoring and for mass-trapping. Agric. For. Entomol. 6:233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockerhoff, E. G. and Suckling, D. M. 1999. Development of an attracticide against light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 92:853–859.Google Scholar
  6. Burban, C., Petit, R. J., Carcreff, E., and Jactel, H. 1999. Rangewide variation of the maritime pine bast scale Matsucoccus feytaudi Duc. (Homoptera: Matsucoccidae) in relation to the genetic structure of its host. Mol. Ecol. 8:1593–1602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Covassi, M. and Binazzi, A. 1992. Primi focolai di Matsucoccus feytaudi Duc. nella Liguria orientale (Homoptera: Margarodidae). Redia 75:453–466.Google Scholar
  8. Dunkelblum, E., Mendel, Z., Gries, G., Gries, R., Zegelman, L., Hassner, A., and Mori, K. 1996. Antennal response and field attraction of the predator Elatophilus hebraicus (Hemiptera: Anthocoridae) to sex pheromones and analogues of the three Matsucoccus spp. (Homoptera: Matsucoccidae). Bioorg. Med. Chem. 4:489–494.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunkelblum, E., Harel, M., Assael, F., Mori, K., and Mendel, Z. 2000. Specificity of pheromonal and kairomonal response of the Israeli pine bast scale Matsucoccus josephi and its predator Elatophilus hebraicus. J. Chem. Ecol. 26:1649–1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El Sayed, A. M., Delisle, J., Lury, N. de, Gut, L. J., Judd, G. J. R., Legrand, S., Reissig, W. H., Roelofs, W. L., Unelius, C. R., Trimble, R. M., and De Lury, N. 2003. Geographic variation in pheromone chemistry, antennal electrophysiology, and pheromone-mediated trap catch of North American populations of the oblique banded leafroller. Environ. Entomol. 32:470–476.Google Scholar
  11. Gross, S., Dunkelblum, E., Assael, F., Harel, M., Zada, A., and Mendel, Z. 2001. Characterization of the performance of pheromone traps as a basis for the management of the citrus mealybug in citrus grove. Boll. Zool. Agrar. Bachic. Ser. II 33:283–295.Google Scholar
  12. Hendrichs, J., Katsoyannos, B. I., Wornoayporn, V., and Hendrichs, M. A. 1994. Odour-mediated foraging by yellowjacket wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae): predation on leks of pheromone-calling Mediterranean fruit fly males (Diptera: Tephritidae). Oecologia 99:88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Howse, P., Stevens, I., and Jones, O. 1998. Insect Pheromones and Their Use in Pest Management. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  14. Jactel, H., Menassieu, P., Ceria, A., Burban, C., Regad, J., Normand, S., and Carcreff, E. 1998. Une pullulation de la cochenille Matsucoccus feytaudi provoque un début de dépérissement du pin maritime en Corse. Rev. For. Fr. 50:33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonsson, P. and Anderbrant, O. 1993. Weather factors influencing catch of Neodiprion sertifer (Hymenoptera: Diprionidae) in pheromone traps. Environ. Entomol. 22:445–452.Google Scholar
  16. Kosztarab, M. and Kozár, F. 1988. Scale Insects of Central Europe. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Krips, O. E., Willems, P. E. L., Gols, R., Posthumus, M. A., and Dicke, M. 1999. The response of Phytoseiulus persimilis to spider mite-induced volatiles from gerbera: influence of starvation and experience. J. Chem. Ecol. 25:2623–2641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McElfresh, J. S. and Millar, J. G. 2001. Geographic variation in the pheromone system of the saturniid moth Hemileuca eglanterina. Ecology 82:3505–3518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mendel, Z., Adar, K., Nestel, D., and Dunkelblum, E. 1997. Sex pheromone as a tool for the study of population trends of the predator of a scale insect and for the identification of potential predators for biological control. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 20:231–240.Google Scholar
  20. Mendel, Z., Dunkelblum, E., Branco, M., Franco, J. C., Kurosawa, S., and Mori, K. 2003. Synthesis and structure–activity relationship of diene modified analogs of Matsucoccus sex pheromones. Naturwissenschaften. 90(7):313–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mendel, Z., Assael, F., and Dunkelblum, E. 2004. Kairomonal attraction of predatory bugs (Heteroptera: Anthocoridae) and brown lacewings (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae) to sex pheromones of Matsucoccus species (Hemiptera: Matsucoccidae). Biol. Control 30:134–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Millar, J. G., Rice, R. E., Steffan, S. A., Daane, K. M., Cullen, E., and Zalom, F. G. 2001. Attraction of female digger wasps, Astata occidentalis Cresson (Hymenoptera: Sphecidae) to the sex pheromone of the stink bug Thyanta pallidovirens (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Pan-Pac. Entomol. 77:244–248.Google Scholar
  23. Millar, J. G., Daane, K. M., McElfresh, J. S., Moreira, J. A., Malakar Kuenen, R., Guillen, M., and Bentley, W. J. 2002. Development and optimization of methods for using sex pheromone for monitoring the mealybug Planococcus ficus (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in California vineyards. J. Econ. Entomol. 95:706–714.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Rieux, R. 1976. Matsucoccus pini Green (1925) (Homoptera, Margarodidae) dans de sud-est de la France. Variations intraspecifiques. Comparaison avec des especes les plus proches. Ann. Zool. Ecol. Anim. 8:231–263.Google Scholar
  25. Sharov, A. A., Liebhold, A. M., and Roberts, E. A. 1996. Spatial variation among counts of gypsy moths (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in pheromone-baited traps at expanding population fronts. Environ. Entomol. 25:1312–1320.Google Scholar
  26. Taschenberg, E. F., Carde, R. T., and Roelofs, W. L. 1974. Sex pheromone mass trapping and mating disruption for control of redbanded leafroller and grape berry moths in vineyards. Environ. Entomol. 3:239–242.Google Scholar
  27. Tranfaglia, A., Pellizzari, G., and Marotta, S. 1985. Reperti su Coccoidea della fauna italiana. Atti XIV Congresso Nazionale Italiano di Entomologia. Erice, 28 May–1 June: 119–126.Google Scholar
  28. Watanabe, H., Watanabe, T., Kitahara, T., and Mori, K. 1997. Concise synthesis of a racemic and diastereomeric mixture of the sex pheromones of Matsucoccus pine scales. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 61:127–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Willis, M. A., David, C. T., Murlis, J., and Cardé, R. T. 1994. Effects of pheromone plume structure and visual stimuli on the pheromone-modulated upwind flight of male gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) in a forest. J. Insect Behav. 7:385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Branco
    • 1
  • M. Lettere
    • 2
  • J. C. Franco
    • 3
  • A. Binazzi
    • 4
  • H. Jactel
    • 5
  1. 1.Centro de Estudos FlorestaisInstituto Superior AgronomiaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.UPMC, Centre de Recherche de Versailles-GrignonVersailles CedexFrance
  3. 3.Departamento de Protecção de Plantas e FitoecologiaInstituto Superior de AgronomiaLisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Istituto Sperimentale per la Zoologia AgrariaFlorenceItaly
  5. 5.Laboratory of Forest EntomologyUMR BIOGECO, INRACestasFrance

Personalised recommendations