Abstract
Surveillance using attractants for invasive species can allow early detection of new incursions and provide decision support to response programs. Simultaneous trapping for multiple species, by baiting traps with several lures, is expected to increase the number of species that can be targeted in surveillance programs and improve the cost-effectiveness without affecting surveillance coverage. We tested this hypothesis by choosing four potential forest and urban lepidopteran pest species that are present in Europe but not yet in New Zealand and many other countries. We deployed traps in central and southern Europe with single lures or all possible species combinations (up to four lures per trap). There was only limited interference, apparently due to trap saturation, but no evidence for interspecific repellency among lures for gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, fall webworm, Hyphantria cunea, pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea pityocampa, and pine shoot moth, Rhyacionia buoliana. To assess what factors may be important in species compatibility/suitability for multiple-species trapping, we combined our results with those of previous studies conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture. For 75 combinations of pheromones, tested singly or in combination, 19 % showed no effect on trap catch for any of the species tested. In the other cases, either one or both species showed a reduction in trap catch. However, few lure combinations caused complete or nearly complete suppression. For most combinations, catches were still sufficiently high for detection purposes. Species from the same superfamily exhibited more interference than more distantly related species. Together, these results suggest that there are opportunities to improve the range of exotic pests under surveillance, at little additional cost, by multiple-species trapping for which compatibility has been demonstrated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ando, T., Inomata, S., and Yamamoto, M. 2004. The chemistry of pheromones and other semiochemicals. Top. Curr. Chem. 239:51–96.
Armstrong, K. F. and Ball, S. L. 2005. DNA barcodes for biosecurity: invasive species identification. Philos. Trans R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci. 360:1813–1823.
Aukema, J. E., McCullough, D. G., Von Holle, B., Liebhold, A. M., Britton, K., and Frankel, S. J. 2010. Historical accumulation of non-indigenous forest pests in the continental United States. BioScience 60:886–897.
Aukema, J. E., Leung, B., Kovacs, K., Chivers, C., Britton, K. O., Englin, J., Frankel, S. J., Haight, R. G., Holmes, T. P., Liebhold, A. M., McCullough, D. G., and Von Holle, B. 2011. Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the United States. PLoS One 6:e24587.
Bogich, T. L., Liebhold, A. M., and Shea, K. 2008. To sample or eradicate? A cost minimization model for monitoring and managing an invasive species. J. Appl. Ecol. 45:1134–1142.
Brockerhoff, E. G., Jones, D. C., Kimberley, M. O., Suckling, D. M., and Donaldson, T. 2006. Nationwide survey for invasive wood-boring and bark beetles (Coleoptera) using traps baited with pheromones and kairomones. For. Ecol. Manage. 228:234–240.
Brockerhoff, E. G., Liebhold, A., Richardson, B., and Suckling, D. M. 2010. Eradication of invasive forest insects: concepts, methods, costs and benefits. N. Z. J. For. Sci. 40(suppl):S117–S135.
Elkinton, J. S. 1987. Changes in efficiency of the pheromone-baited milk-carton trap as it fills with male gypsy moths (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 80:754–757.
El-Sayed, A. M. 2012. The Pherobase: Database of insect pheromones and semiochemicals. http://www.pherobase.com. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
El-Sayed, A. M., Gibb, A. R., and Suckling, D. M. 2005. Chemistry of the sex pheromone gland of the fall webworm, Hyphantria cunea, discovered in New Zealand. N. Z. Plant Prot. 58:31–36.
Gries, G., Gries, R., Khaskin, G., Slessor, K. N., Grant, G. G., Liška, J., and Kapitola, P. 1996. Specificity of nun and gypsy moth sexual communication through multiple-component pheromone blends. Naturwissenschaften 83:382–385.
Gries, G., Schaefer, P. W., Gries, R., Liška, J., and Gotoh, T. 2001. Reproductive character displacement in Lymantria monacha from northern Japan? J. Chem. Ecol. 27:1163–1176.
Howse, P. E., Stevens, I. D. R., and Jones, O. T. 1998. Insect Pheromones and Their Use in Pest Management. Chapman & Hall, London, UK.
Jactel, H., Menassieu, P., Vétillard, F., Barthélémy, B., Piou, D., Frérot, B., Rousselet, J., Goussard, F., Branco, M., and Battisti, A. 2006. Population monitoring of the pine processionary moth (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) with pheromone-baited traps. For. Ecol. Manage. 235:96–106.
Johansson, B. G., Anderbrant, O., and Sierpinski, A. 2002. Multispecies trapping of six pests of Scots pine in Sweden and Poland. J. Appl. Entomol. 126:212–216.
Jones, B. C., Roland, J., and Evenden, M. L. 2009. Development of a combined sex pheromone-based monitoring system for Malacosoma disstria (Lepidoptera: Lasoicampidae) and Choristoneura conflictana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 38:459–471.
Mastro, V. C., Schwalbe, C. P., Kingsley, P. C., and Lance, D. R. 1984. Pheromone-based survey technology for early detection of exotic insect pests. Report period: April 3, 1983–September 30, 1984. USDA Otis, Massachusetts, Report, Project CNPPSDP 4.1.1, p. 107–149.
Mastro, V. C., Schwalbe, C. P., and Kingsley, P. C. 1985. Pheromone-based survey technology for early detection of exotic insect pests. Report period: October 1, 1984–September 30, 1985. USDA Otis, Massachusetts, Report, Project CNPPSDP 4.1.1, p. 141–161.
Pimentel, D., Zuniga, R., and Morrison, D. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 52:273–288.
Pogue, M. G., and Schaefer, P. W. 2007. A review of selected species of Lymantria Hübner [1819] (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae: Lymantriinae) from subtropical and temperate regions of Asia, including the descriptions of three new species, some potentially invasive to North America. Washington, D.C.: USDA, Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Technology Transfer FHTET-2006-07, 223 p.
Rabaglia, R., Duerr, D., Acciavatti, R., and Ragenovich, I. 2008. Early detection and rapid response for non-native bark and ambrosia beetles. Washington DC, USA: USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/EDRRProjectReport.pdf. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
Régnière, J., Nealis, V., and Porter, K. 2009. Climate suitability and management of the gypsy moth invasion into Canada. Biol. Invas. 11:135–148.
Schwalbe, C. P. and Mastro, V. C. 1988. Multispecific trapping techniques for exotic pest detection. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 21:43–51.
Sharov, A. A., Liebhold, A. M., and Roberts, E. A. 1998. Optimizing the use of barrier zones to slow the spread of gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in North America. J. Econ. Entomol. 91:165–174.
Sharov, A. A., Leonard, D., Liebhold, A. M., Roberts, E. A., and Dickerson, W. 2002. “Slow the Spread” A national program to contain the gypsy moth. J. For. 100:30–36.
Stephens, A. E. A., Suckling, D. M., and El-Sayed, A. M. 2008. Odour quality discrimination for behavioural antagonist compounds in three tortricid species. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 127:176–183.
Symonds, M. R. E. and Elgar, M. A. 2008. The evolution of pheromone diversity. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23:220–228.
Tobin, P. C., Klein, K. T., and Leonard, D. S. 2009. Gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) flight behavior and phenology based on field-deployed automated pheromone-baited traps. Environ. Entomol. 38:1555–1562.
United States Forest Service. 2012. The gypsy moth digest. http://www.na.fs.fed.us/fhp/gm/. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
Witzgall, P., Kirsch, P., and Cork, A. 2010. Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management. J. Chem. Ecol. 36:80–100.
Wylie, F. R., Griffiths, M., and King, J. 2008. Development of hazard site surveillance programs for forest invasive species: a case study from Brisbane, Australia. Austral. For. 71(3):229–235.
Acknowledgments
We thank Ashraf El-Sayed and Lee-Anne Manning for advice on pheromone compounds and two anonymous reviewers for comments on the manuscript. Funding from the New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology (contract C02X0501, the ‘Better Border Biosecurity’ programme, www.b3nz.org) is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary 1a
(DOCX 41 kb)
Supplementary 1b
(DOCX 42 kb)
Supplementary 2
(DOCX 43 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brockerhoff, E.G., Suckling, D.M., Roques, A. et al. Improving the Efficiency of Lepidopteran Pest Detection and Surveillance: Constraints and Opportunities for Multiple-Species Trapping. J Chem Ecol 39, 50–58 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-012-0223-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-012-0223-6