Next Article in Journal
Insecticidal Activity of Plant Powders against the Parasitoid, Pteromalus venustus, and Its Host, the Alfalfa Leafcutting Bee
Previous Article in Journal
Suitability of European Trichogramma Species as Biocontrol Agents against the Tomato Leaf Miner Tuta absoluta
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimizing Trap Characteristics to Monitor the Leaffooted Bug Leptoglossus zonatus (Heteroptera: Coreidae) in Orchards

1
Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
2
Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720-3114, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 6 May 2020 / Revised: 27 May 2020 / Accepted: 6 June 2020 / Published: 9 June 2020

Abstract

:
The leaffooted bug, Leptoglossus zonatus (Heteroptera: Coreidae), has become a key pest of almonds, pistachios, and pomegranates in California. Adults and nymphs directly feed on nuts and fruits, which reduces crop yield and quality and can facilitate pathogen infections. Current monitoring strategies require growers to actively sample the tree canopy, with no economic thresholds being developed for this pest. To improve monitoring of L. zonatus, a three-year study was conducted to identify an optimal trap. A hanging cross-vane panel trap was identified as the best trap type in Year 1, and subsequent work in Years 1–3 focused on refining its use by modifying surface texture and color. Results indicated that coating trap surfaces with the lubricant fluon improved trap catching ability, and adults were most frequently recovered in yellow traps. A hanging cross-vane panel trap with these features could serve as the basis for the development of a new monitoring system for this pest in orchards, which could be improved further if semiochemical lures will be developed.

1. Introduction

The genus Leptoglossus is neotropical in origin, with most species limited to Central and South America [1,2], where they are considered pests for a wide variety of crops [3,4,5,6,7,8]. In North America, the key economic species are L. clypealis, L. occidentalis, L. phyllopus, and L. zonatus. Leptoglossus occidentalis primarily attack coniferous trees [9,10], whereas the other three species have been recovered from a range of perennial crops that include tree nuts, citrus, peaches, and pomegranates [11,12,13,14]. The primary agricultural pest species in California are L. clypealis and L. zonatus, which are known to attack almonds, pistachios, and pomegranates when not feeding on a variety of weedy annual species [15]. Early reports first documented L. clypealis feeding on pistachio, which led to nut drop and epicarp lesion [16,17]. While historically L. clypealis has been the dominant species found on California tree nuts [18], recent surveys have noted a shift towards L. zonatus, which is now considered the primary species attacking these crops [15,19,20].
These species of Leptoglossus overwinter as adults in aggregations in sheltered areas, such as evergreen trees, shrubs, and residential structures, and in the spring disperse in search of food and reproduction sites [10,14,15,21]. In California, L. clypealis and L. zonatus complete three generations, but a fourth generation is possible if quality food sources and mild fall-winter temperatures are present [19]. While there are many plant species these leaffooted bugs will feed on, adults typically begin to attack almonds in April–May. As almond shells harden, adults (either from the overwintering or first summer generation) move over to pistachios in May–June, which are still vulnerable during this period. Similarly, as pistachio shells harden, the later summer generation(s) of adult leaffooted bug shift to pomegranates in August–September, and typically complete a generation while residing in this crop until late November, at which point adults move to overwintering aggregation sites. While the most extensive crop damage is due to adults, who have strong mouthparts and can disperse widely, feeding by developing nymphs can also have an impact on crop yield and quality.
Current recommendations for monitoring leaffooted bugs include beat sampling the tree canopy, visually searching trees for adults, or assessing immature nuts for signs of feeding damage [15,21]. All of these approaches are very time and labor intensive, and no economic thresholds associated with any of these sampling methods exist. Furthermore, damaging populations of L. zonatus adults can be sporadic and tend to arrive rapidly, which makes them difficult to predict and/or detect in a timely manner. As such, use of chemical controls is typically based on presence/absence of Leptoglossus spp. and largely rely on pyrethroids, like bifenthrin and lambda-cyhalothrin. Design of an effective trap and lure system for monitoring L. zonatus could improve sampling efficiency and facilitate the development of economic thresholds. Here, as a first step towards developing this type of system, different trap types were screened for their ability to catch L. zonatus under field conditions, with parallel optimization of several trap parameters.

2. Materials and Methods

A series of field studies were carried out over a three-year period in the San Joaquin Valley, California. In an initial study in Year 1, the efficacy of different trap types was compared, in order to identify the most promising one. The subsequent efforts in Years 1–3 focused on refining the use of the most efficient trap, by modifying trap color and surface coating. Working with unbaited traps required that all studies took place at sites with heavy infestations in the late summer and fall when L. zonatus populations are highest.

2.1. Trap Comparison Study

Five trap types and three bait treatments were evaluated at three field sites that included an olive, pistachio, and pomegranate orchard, each heavily infested with L. zonatus. The olive orchard was 2.8 ha (7 ac), the pistachio orchard was 0.8 ha (2 ac), and the pomegranate orchard was arranged as a hedge that was 4.6 m (15 ft) wide by 419.4 m (1376 ft) long.
Trap types included a black hanging cross-vane panel trap (Intercept Trap, Alpha Scents, West Linn, OR, USA), a 1.2 m (4 ft) tall black pyramid trap (Dead Inn, AgBio Inc., Denver, CO, USA), a 0.6 m (2 ft) tall black pyramid trap (Dead Inn, AgBio Inc., Denver, CO, USA), a 15.2 × 30.5 cm (6 × 12 in) clear sticky dual panel trap (Pherocon, Trécé Inc., Adair, OK, USA), and a green-white-yellow bucket trap (Multi-color UNI-Trap, Alpha Scents, West Linn, OR, USA). The collection buckets of the hanging cross-vane panel traps and bucket traps contained 443 mL (15 oz) of a killing solution, which consisted of 9.9 mL (2 tsp) biodegradable detergent diluted in 3.8 L (1 gal) of water.
Trap baits included split pomegranate (50 g), almond meal (40 g) mixed with crude almond oil (10 g), and a no bait control. Baits were placed in 10.2 × 15.2 cm (4 × 6 in) organdy mesh bags. These bait bags were then suspended from the center of the hanging panel trap, placed inside the collection cup at the top of the pyramid traps, attached with a binder clip to the clear sticky trap, or suspended in the collection cup inside the bucket trap. In total there were 15 unique trap × bait treatment combinations.
At each of the three sites, a randomized complete block design was used with five replicates per site. Replicates were spaced 36.6 m, 18.3 m, and 10 m apart and within replicates the different trap/bait treatments were spaced 9.1 m, 5.2 m, and 33 m apart at the olive, pistachio, and pomegranate sites, respectively. Traps were set up and monitored weekly between 7 September–18 October in Year 1. Each week the baits and collecting solution were replaced and all adult Leptoglossus spp. were removed, sexed, and identified to species.

2.2. Surface Coating Study

In a follow-up study, the use of fluon (Insect-a-Slip, BioQuip, Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA) was evaluated to improve recovery of Leptoglossus spp. in the black hanging cross-vane panel traps. There were five treatments that included a coating of undiluted fluon; dilutions of 50%, 25%, and 12.5% fluon; and a control trap with no fluon. In each fluon treatment, a single layer of solution was painted over all trap surfaces. No baits were used with any of the traps. Traps were evaluated using a randomized complete block design with five replicates at the pomegranate site described above. Traps were set up and monitored weekly from 13 November–4 December in Year 1. As before, each week, the collecting solution was replaced and all adult Leptoglossus spp. were removed, sexed, and identified to species.

2.3. Trap Color

The effect of the hanging cross-vane panel trap color was evaluated each fall in a heavily infested pomegranate orchard over a three-year period. Black traps were compared to red, yellow, green, blue, and white traps. Field studies utilized a randomized complete block design with five replicates. In Years 1–2, this study was located at the pomegranate site described above and took place during 4–18 December, in Year 1, and 22 August–20 November, in Year 2. In Year 3, the study took place 27 September–3 December in a 0.4 ha (1 ac) pomegranate orchard at the UC Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Parlier, California, USA. Replicates were spaced 10 m and 10.3 m apart and traps within replicates were spaced 3 m and 9.1 m apart, in Years 1–2 and 3, respectively.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data on insect abundance from each trial were log (x + 1) transformed and analyzed with generalized linear mixed-models using the “glmer” function in the “lme4” package in the R statistical program (http://www.r-project.org/). Fixed effects were evaluated through model comparison using chi-square tests via the “drop1” function. When a multilevel categorical variable was found to be significant, means were separated using post hoc Tukey contrasts (“glht” function in the “multcomp” package). Male and female L. zonatus were evaluated separately.
For the trap/bait study, fixed effects included “Trap Type” and “Bait,” with the random effects “Replicate Block” nested within “Site” within “Sample Week.” Replicate Block was included as a random effect, since each block contained multiple repeats of the different trap types and baits. An interaction term for “Trap Type × Bait” was initially evaluated, but since it was found to be non-significant, the analysis presented here models these factors separately. The fluon study included fixed effect “Fluon Dilution” and the random effect “Sample Week.” Finally, the trap color study included fixed effect “Trap Color,” with random effects “Site” nested within “Sample Week” within “Year.”

3. Results

Almost all the Leptoglossus spp. recovered in these trials were L. zonatus, with L. clypealis rarely encountered. As such, all of the data analyses focused on L. zonatus alone. Analysis of the trap and bait trial data (n = 400, total L. zonatus females = 103, males = 114) indicated that capture of L. zonatus was influenced by trap type (males χ2 = 106.8, p < 0.001; females χ2 = 101.0, p < 0.001), but not by bait (males χ2 = 0.2, p = 0.91; females χ2 = 0.2, p = 0.92). The hanging cross-vane panel trap captured the most L. zonatus adults (Figure 1). In the surface treatment trial (n = 75, total L. zonatus females = 277, males = 213), L. zonatus catch was increased substantially by coating trap surfaces with fluon (males χ2 = 33.6, p < 0.001; females χ2 = 20.4, p < 0.001), even when highly diluted (Figure 2). Finally, data from the multi-year trap color experiment (n = 568, total L. zonatus females = 342, males = 201) indicated differences in L. zonatus catch across the different trap colors (males χ2 = 40.6, p < 0.001; females χ2 = 70.0, p < 0.001). Yellow traps were the most attractive, followed by blue and green traps, while white and red traps were the least attractive (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

This series of experiments demonstrated that an unbaited hanging cross-vane panel trap is attractive to L. zonatus, especially a yellow trap. Capture can be increased by coating trap surfaces with fluon to reduce insect ability to grip the trap surface. Inclusion of a split pomegranate or almond meal bait did not increase trap catch, indicating that these materials have low attractive ability on this insect species, and that L. zonatus apparently are attracted to the hanging cross-vane panel trap itself. Response of L. zonatus to a large dark object, such as this panel trap, is similar to observations by Panizzi [22], who reported that L. zonatus aggregated on unbaited plastic cylinder traps when the cylinders were first introduced into corn fields.
The cross-vane panel trap was initially developed to monitor Coleoptera in forests [23,24], as a replacement or supplement for the multiple-funnel trap [25]. Subsequent work with the cross-vane panel trap demonstrated its utility for trapping cerambycid and buprestid beetles [26,27,28]. Trapping efficacy for beetle species can be further enhanced, sometimes more than ten-fold, by coating trap surfaces with fluon or other lubricants [29,30,31]. Our results demonstrated analogous increases in trapping efficiency when traps were treated with fluon.
Cross-vane panel traps have also been used to effectively trap Hemipterans, such as triatomines (Reduviidae: Triatominae) [32], bagrada bug (Pentatomidae: Bagrada hilaris) [33], and brown marmorated stink bug (Pentatomidae: Halyomorpha halys) [34], but apparently are not well suited for spotted lanternfly (Fulgoridae: Lycorma delicatula) [35]. No traps specifically for Leptoglossus spp. have been developed. The scant literature includes a prototype bottle trap for L. zonatus [36], along with a study that mentions the use of multi-funnel traps for testing L. occidentalis attraction to caged aggregations of males and females [37]. Bycatch of non-target organisms in the cross-vane panel trap was minimal, with some honeybees (Apidae: Apis mellifera) recovered in blue and green traps and assassin bugs (Reduviidae: Zelus spp.) in blue and yellow traps (data not shown).
The effect of trap color has been widely evaluated across multiple insect orders, including Coleoptera [38,39,40], Lepidoptera [41,42,43], Hymenoptera [44,45,46,47], and Hemiptera [48,49,50,51,52]. The only previous study to evaluate Leptoglossus spp. responses to color was a laboratory study, which found that L. zonatus adults and nymphs were primarily attracted to blue and green [53]. These results were partially complimented in our study, in which blue and green were the second and third most attractive colors after yellow. Response of L. zonatus to trap color in the current study may have been skewed by differences in trap temperature, which likely varied between the lighter and darker colored traps under field conditions. This may be an important consideration, given that a recent study of L. occidentalis, a relative species of L. zonatus, indicated that this species utilizes infrared cues to locate host plants [54]. It may be that L. zonatus utilizes infrared cues in a similar way. As such, subsequent field evaluations of trap color effects on L. zonatus could be improved by controlling for, or at least recording data on, trap temperature.

5. Conclusions

Identification of the hanging cross-vane panel trap for L. zonatus represents an important step forward in the development of an effective monitoring program for this pest, especially the highly mobile adult, and will allow for the future screening of candidate lures for this insect under field conditions [55]. Once paired with an attractive lure, studies will need to determine the most effective density and spatial arrangement of traps to accurately reflect orchard populations of L. zonatus and correlate trap captures with economic thresholds. If perfected, this type of trap and lure sampling system will reduce the sampling effort and lead to earlier and/or more accurate detection of L. zonatus populations in orchards. It is also possible that these traps could work well for other Leptoglossus pest species, such as L. occidentalis, which has recently invaded Europe, and may be worth further investigation in that context [56,57].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.W. and K.M.D.; methodology, H.W. and J.J.M.; investigation, H.W. and J.J.M.; formal analysis, H.W.; writing—original draft preparation, H.W.; writing—review and editing, H.W., J.J.M. and K.M.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the California Pistachio Research Board and the Almond Board of California.

Acknowledgments

Authors thank the California Pistachio Research Board and the Almond Board of California for funding this research. Field studies and data collection were carried out with assistance from German Camacho, Jesus Ceja, Gabrielle Celaya, Tyler Colombero, Dani Evans, Javier Herrera, Garrett Morales, Joshua Reger, Austin Souza, May Yang, and Sunny Yang. Many thanks are owed as well to all collaborating growers for access to field sites to collect insects. Authors also extend thanks to Jocelyn Millar for providing useful comments and feedback on a draft version of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allen, R.C. A revision of the genus Leptoglossus Guérin (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Entomol. Am. 1969, 45, 35–140. [Google Scholar]
  2. Brailovsky, H. Illustrated key for identification of the species included in the genus Leptoglossus (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Coreidae: Coreinae: Anisoscelini), and descriptions of five new species and new synonyms. Zootaxa 2014, 3794, 143–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Panizzi, A.R. Desempenho de ninfas e adultos de Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas, 1852) (Hemiptera: Coreidae) em diferentes alimentos. An. da Soc. Entomológica do Bras. 1989, 18, 375–389. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kubo, R.; Batista, A. Ocorrência e danos provocados por Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas, 1852) (Hemiptera: Coreidae) em citros. An. da Soc. Entomol. do Bras. 1992, 21, 467–470. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rodriguez, F.C.Y.; Carmona, M.A.L.; Zuluaga, N.C.; Gamboa, J.A.Q. Plagas potenciales del cultivo de Jatropha curcas L., en el occidente de Antioquia, Colombia. Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medellin. 2012, 65, 6823–6826. [Google Scholar]
  6. Raga, A.; Piza, C.; de Souza, F. Occurrence and damage of Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas) (Heteroptera: Coreidae) on pomegranate, Punica granatum L., in Campinas, Sao Paulo. An. Soc. Entomol. do Bras. 1995, 24, 183. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rodrigues Netto, S.M.; Guilhem, D.J. Ocorrência de Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas, 1852) (Hemiptera: Coreidae) em maracujazeiro (Passiflora edulis f. flavicarpa). Arq. Inst. Biol. (Sao Paulo) 1996, 63, 85–86. [Google Scholar]
  8. Pires, E.M.; Bonaldo, S.M.; Ferreira, J.A.M.; Soares, M.A.; Candan, S. New record of Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas) (Heteroptera: Coreidae) attacking starfruit (Averrhoa carambola L.) in Sinop, Mato Grosso, Brazil. EntomoBrasilis. 2011, 4, 33–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Koerber, T.W. Leptoglossus occidentalis (Hemiptera, Coreidae), a newly discovered pest of coniferous seed. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1963, 56, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hedlin, A.F.; Yates III, H.O.; Tovar, D.C.; Ebel, B.H.; Koerber, T.W.; Merkel, E.P. Cone and Seed Insects of North American Conifers; United States Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  11. Burgess, P.S. 55th Annual Report for the Year Ending June 30, 1944; University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station: Tuscon, AZ, USA, 1955. [Google Scholar]
  12. Schaefer, C.W.; Mitchell, P.L. Foodplants of the Coreoidea (Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 1983, 76, 591–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tarango Rivera, S.H.; Banuelos, M.L.G.; Plata, M.C.C. Efecto de la alimenta de cinco especies de chinches (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae: Coreidae) en frutos de nogal pecanero. Agric. Tec. Mex. 2007, 33, 241–249. [Google Scholar]
  14. Xiao, Y.; Fadamiro, H.Y. Host preference and development of Leptoglossus zonatus (Hemiptera: Coreidae) on Satsuma mandarin. J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 1908–1914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Daane, K.M.; Yokota, G.Y.; Bentley, W.J.; Weinberger, G.B.; Millar, J.G.; Beede, R.H. Stink bugs and leaffooted bugs. In Pistachio Production Manual; Ferguson, L., Haviland, D.R., Eds.; University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3545: Oakland, CA, USA, 2016; pp. 225–238. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bolkan, H.A.; Ogawa, J.M.; Rice, R.; Bostock, R.M.; Crane, J.C. Leaf-footed bug implicated in pistachio epicarp lesion. Calif. Agric. 1984, 38, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
  17. Michailides, T.J.; Rice, R.E.; Ogawa, J.M. Succession and significance of several hemipterans attacking a pistachio orchard. J. Econ. Entomol. 1987, 80, 398–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Daane, K.; Yokota, G.; Krugner, R.; Steffan, S.; da Silva, P.; Beede, R.; Bentley, W.; Weinberger, G. Large bugs damage pistachio nuts most severely during midseason. Calif. Agric. 2005, 59, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Daane, K.M.; Yokota, G.Y.; Wilson, H. Seasonal dynamics of the leaffooted bug Leptoglossus zonatus and its implications for control in almonds and pistachios. Insects 2019, 10, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Joyce, A.L.; Higbee, B.S.; Haviland, D.R.; Brailovsky, H. Genetic variability of two leaffooted bugs, Leptoglossus clypealis and Leptoglossus zonatus (Hemiptera: Coreidae) in the Central Valley of California. J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 2576–2589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zalom, F.G.; Haviland, D.R.; Symmes, E.S.; Tollerup, K.E. Leaffooted Bug. In UC IPM Almond Pest Management Guidelines; University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication #3431: Oakland, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Panizzi, A.R. A possible territorial or recognition behavior of Leptoglossus zonatus (Dallas) (Heteroptera: Coreidae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2004, 48, 577–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Czokajlo, D.; Ross, D.; Kirsch, P. Intercept panel trap, a novel trap for monitoring forest Coleoptera. J. For. Sci. 2001, 47, 63–65. [Google Scholar]
  24. McIntosh, L.R.; Katinic, P.J.; Allison, J.D.; Borden, J.H.; Downey, D.L. Comparative efficacy of five types of trap for woodborers in the Cerambycidae, Buprestidae and Siricidae. Agric. For. Entomol. 2001, 3, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Lindgren, B.S. A multiple funnel trap for scolytid beetles (Coleoptera). Can. Entomol. 1983, 115, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. De Groot, P.; Nott, R. Evaluation of traps of six different designs to capture pine sawyer beetles (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Agric. For. Entomol. 2001, 3, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Miller, R.D.; Crowe, C.M. Relative performance of Lindgren multiple-funnel, intercept panel, and colossus pipe traps in catching Cerambycidae and associated species in the Southeastern United States. J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104, 1934–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Graham, E.E.; Poland, T.M.; McCullough, D.G.; Millar, J.G. A comparison of trap type and height for capturing cerambycid beetles (Coleoptera). J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 837–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Graham, E.E.; Mitchell, R.F.; Reagel, P.F.; Barbour, J.D.; Millar, J.G.; Hanks, L.M. Treating panel traps with a fluoropolymer enhances their efficiency in capturing cerambycid beetles. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 641–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Graham, E.E.; Poland, T.M. Efficacy of fluon conditioning for capturing cerambycid beetles in different trap designs and persistence on panel traps over time. J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 395–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Allison, J.D.; Graham, E.E.; Poland, T.M.; Strom, B.L. Dilution of fluon before trap surface treatment has no effect on longhorned beetle (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) captures. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 1215–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Updyke, A.E.; Allan, B.F. An experimental evaluation of cross-vane panel traps for the collection of sylvatic Triatomines (Hemiptera: Reduviidae). J. Med. Entomol. 2018, 55, 485–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Joseph, S.V. Effect of trap color on captures of bagrada bug, Bagrada hilaris (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). J. Entomol. Sci. 2014, 49, 318–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chase, K.D.; Stringer, L.D.; Butler, R.C.; Liebhold, A.M.; Miller, D.R.; Shearer, P.W.; Brockerhoff, E.G. Multiple-lure surveillance trapping for Ips bark beetles, Monochamus longhorn beetles, and Halyomorpha halys (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2255–2263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Francese, J.A.; Cooperband, M.F.; Murman, K.M.; Cannon, S.L.; Booth, E.G.; Devine, S.M.; Wallace, M.S. Developing traps for the spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae). Environ. Entomol. 2020, 49, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Barreto, M.R.; da Silva, L.G. Eficiência da armadilha “R. Bianco” para captura do percevejo Leptoglossus zonatus Dallas (Hemiptera: Coreidae), na cultura do milho. EntomoBrasilis 2016, 9, 84–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Blatt, E.S.; Borden, J.H. Evidence for a male-produced aggregation pheromone in the western conifer seed bug, Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann (Hemiptera: Coreidae). Can. Entomol. 1996, 128, 777–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hesler, L.S.; Sutter, G.R. Effect of trap color, volatile attractants, and type of toxic bait dispenser on captures of adult corn rootworm beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). Environ. Entomol. 1993, 22, 743–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Francese, J.A.; Crook, D.J.; Fraser, I.; Lance, D.R.; Sawyer, A.J.; Mastro, V.C. Optimization of trap color for emerald ash borer (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 1235–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, S.H.S.; Trammel, E.C.; Lewis, B.A.; Johnson, D.T. Comparison of color attractiveness for Agrilus ruficollis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): Potential for a simple trap. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 1799–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mitchell, E.R.; Agee, H.R.; Heath, R.R. Influence of pheromone trap color and design on capture of male velvetbean caterpillar and fall armyworm moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Chem. Ecol. 1989, 15, 1775–1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Knight, A.L.; Fisher, A.J. Increased catch of codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in semiochemical-baited orange plastic delta-shaped traps. Environ. Entomol. 2006, 35, 1597–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Athanassiou, G.C.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Mazomenos, B.E. Effect of trap type, trap color, trapping location, and pheromone dispenser on captures of male Palpita unionalis (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 97, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Trimble, M.R.; Brach, E.J. Effect of color on sticky-trap catches of Pholetesor ornigis (Hymenoptera: Braconidae), a parasite of the spotted tentiform leafminer Phyllonorycter blancardella (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae). Can. Entomol. 1985, 117, 1559–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Stephen, P.W.; Rao, S. Unscented color traps for non-Apis Bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 2005, 78, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Toler, R.T.; Evans, E.W.; Tepedino, V.J. Pan-trapping for bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Utah’s West Desert: The importance of color diversity. Pan-Pac. Entomol. 2005, 81, 103–113. [Google Scholar]
  47. Beers, E.H. Effect of trap color and orientation on the capture of Aphelinus mali (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), a parasitoid of woolly apple aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2012, 105, 1342–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Landis, J.B.; Fox, L. Lygus bugs in eastern Washington: Color preferences and winter activity. Environ. Entomol. 1972, 1, 464–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Chum, -C.C.; Pinter, P.J.; Henneberry, T.J.; Umeda, K.; Natwick, E.T.; Wei, Y.-A.; Reddy, V.R.; Shrepatis, M. Use of CC traps with different trap base colors for silverleaf whiteflies (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae), thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), and leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 93, 1329–1337. [Google Scholar]
  50. Leskey, C.T.; Wright, S.E.; Short, B.D.; Khrimian, A. Development of behaviorally-based monitoring tools for the brown marmorated stink bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) in commercial tree fruit orchards. J. Entomol. Sci. 2012, 47, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rodriguez-Saona, R.C.; Byers, J.A.; Schiffhauer, D. Effect of trap color and height on captures of blunt-nosed and sharp-nosed leafhoppers (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) and non-target arthropods in cranberry bogs. Crop Prot. 2012, 40, 132–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dimeglio, S.A.; Kuhar, T.P.; Weber, D.C. Color preference of harlequin bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2017, 110, 2275–2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Franco-Archundia, L.S.; Gonzaga-Segura, A.J.; Jimenez-Perez, A.; Castejon-Gomez, V.R. Behavioral response of Leptoglossus zonatus (Heteroptera: Coreidae) to stimuli based on colors and its aggregation pheromone. Insects 2018, 9, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Takács, S.; Bottomley, H.; Andreller, I.; Zaradnik, T.; Schwarz, J.; Bennett, R.; Strong, W.; Gries, G. Infrared radiation from hot cones on cool conifers attracts seed-feeding insects. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2009, 276, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Beck, J.J.; Gee, W.S.; Cheng, L.W.; Higbee, B.S.; Wilson, H.; Daane, K.M. Investigating host plant-based semiochemicals for attracting the leaffooted bug (Hemiptera: Coreidae), an insect pest of California agriculture. In Roles of Natural Products and Biorational Pesticides in Agriculture; Beck, J.J., Rering, C.C., Duke, S.O., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 143–165. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lesieur, V.; Lombaert, E.; Guillemaud, T.; Courtial, B.; Strong, W.; Roques, A.; Auger-Rozenburg, M.-A. The rapid spread of Leptoglossus occidentalis in Europe: A bridgehead invasion. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lis, J.A.; Lis, B.; Gubernator, J. Will the invasive western conifer seed bug Leptoglossus occidentalis Heidemann (Hemiptera: Heteroptera: Coreidae) seize all of Europe? Zootaxa 2008, 17410, 66–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The hanging cross-vane panel trap consistently captured the most L. zonatus, regardless of bait type. Columns of the same color without a common letter differ significantly. Alm. = almond meal bait, Cont. = no bait control, and Pom. = pomegranate bait; Bucket Trap = green-white-yellow bucket trap, Hanging Panel = black hanging cross-vane panel trap, Pyramid - Short = 0.6 m pyramid trap, Pyramid - Tall = 1.2 m pyramid trap, and Clear Sticky Trap = clear sticky dual panel trap.
Figure 1. The hanging cross-vane panel trap consistently captured the most L. zonatus, regardless of bait type. Columns of the same color without a common letter differ significantly. Alm. = almond meal bait, Cont. = no bait control, and Pom. = pomegranate bait; Bucket Trap = green-white-yellow bucket trap, Hanging Panel = black hanging cross-vane panel trap, Pyramid - Short = 0.6 m pyramid trap, Pyramid - Tall = 1.2 m pyramid trap, and Clear Sticky Trap = clear sticky dual panel trap.
Insects 11 00358 g001
Figure 2. The addition of fluon increased trap capture of L. zonatus. Columns of the same color without a common letter differ significantly.
Figure 2. The addition of fluon increased trap capture of L. zonatus. Columns of the same color without a common letter differ significantly.
Insects 11 00358 g002
Figure 3. Yellow traps captured the most L. zonatus, followed by blue and green traps. X-axis defines the color of trap evaluated. Columns of the same color without a common letter differ significantly.
Figure 3. Yellow traps captured the most L. zonatus, followed by blue and green traps. X-axis defines the color of trap evaluated. Columns of the same color without a common letter differ significantly.
Insects 11 00358 g003

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wilson, H.; Maccaro, J.J.; Daane, K.M. Optimizing Trap Characteristics to Monitor the Leaffooted Bug Leptoglossus zonatus (Heteroptera: Coreidae) in Orchards. Insects 2020, 11, 358. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects11060358

AMA Style

Wilson H, Maccaro JJ, Daane KM. Optimizing Trap Characteristics to Monitor the Leaffooted Bug Leptoglossus zonatus (Heteroptera: Coreidae) in Orchards. Insects. 2020; 11(6):358. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects11060358

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wilson, Houston, Jessica J. Maccaro, and Kent M. Daane. 2020. "Optimizing Trap Characteristics to Monitor the Leaffooted Bug Leptoglossus zonatus (Heteroptera: Coreidae) in Orchards" Insects 11, no. 6: 358. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/insects11060358

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop