Next Article in Journal
Defeated Stacked Resistance Genes Induce a Delay in Disease Manifestation in the Pathosystem Solanum tuberosum—Phytophthora infestans
Previous Article in Journal
Year-Round Production of Cotton and Wheat or Rapeseed Regulated by Different Nitrogen Rates with Crop Straw Returning
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/agronomy13051256
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Different Trap Types Depict Dissimilar Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Cotton Fields

by
Elina Karakantza
1,
Christos I. Rumbos
1,
Chris Cavalaris
2 and
Christos G. Athanassiou
1,*
1
Laboratory of Entomology and Agricultural Zoology, Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece
2
Laboratory of Agricultural Machinery, Department of Agriculture Crop Production and Rural Environment, University of Thessaly, 38446 Volos, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(5), 1256; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051256
Submission received: 7 April 2023 / Revised: 24 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 28 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Pest and Disease Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pheromone-baited traps have been widely used for the monitoring of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in order to time any control measures during the growing season. Different monitoring techniques may provide differential results regarding adult captures. However, studies on the comparative evaluation of the performance of different trap types on the captures of H. armigera are limited. To close this gap, in the present study, three different funnel traps (striped, green, and colored) were simultaneously evaluated in Central Greece, one of the main cotton-producing geographical zones in the European Union, in order to compare trap performance on the captures of H. armigera, as well as to depict the distribution of this species per trap in the study area. A differential performance of the different trap types tested, expressed as numbers of adults captured, was recorded. Specifically, the striped trap captured many more adult moths than the other two trap types. Given that the only difference among these traps was the color of the external trap surface, we hypothesize that trap color does matter in the case of H. armigera, and it is likely that brighter colors may be more attractive than darker ones.

1. Introduction

The cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a serious pest of a wide range of crops, which has been found to infest more than 200 different plant species [1,2]. Apart from cotton, for which it is considered a major key pest, this species is devastating for different types of plant species, ranging from vegetables, legumes, and maize, to ornamental plants and trees [1]. The infestation is caused by the larvae that are fed on the various parts of the plants, particularly the fruiting bodies [2]. In cotton, H. armigera is particularly important, as it can cause serious infestations to leaves, buds, flowers, and, especially, bolls [3]. Therefore, targeted species-specific control strategies have been developed and are being implemented, mainly based on the use of conventional synthetic insecticides. Moreover, this species has developed a considerable level of resistance to a wide range of insecticides with different modes of action, which constitutes essential the selection of specific active ingredients and the timing of the insecticidal applications [4,5,6,7]. At the same time, H. armigera is considered an invasive species in different parts of the world that necessitates the establishment of area-wide monitoring strategies [8].
Monitoring of H. armigera is largely based on the utilization of different types of traps, with pheromone-baited traps being the most popular, since the discovery of the male attractant of this species as a mixture of (Z)-11-hexadecenal and (Z)-9-hexadecenal [9]. In this context, there are numerous studies that have used traps to estimate the population fluctuation of H. armigera, as well as to time any control measures during the growing season [10,11,12,13]. The most popular traps that have been used extensively for this purpose are the so called “funnel” traps, on which the adults are captured in a “bucket” that usually contains a killing agent [13]. Funnel traps have an advantage over traps with exposed adhesive surfaces, such as the delta traps, given that the latter can capture a finite number of adults, as compared with the funnel traps that have a much higher capturing capacity [13]. This pattern has been replicated even in the case of small-bodied species, such as the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) [14]. Nevertheless, there are different types of pheromone-baited traps available that may provide differential results regarding captures of adult males [13,15]. For instance, on cotton, a recent study indicated that the population fluctuation of H. armigera was different according to the trap type used, both in terms of the numbers of moths that were captured, as well as the estimation of the succession of the generations [15]. Similar results have been also reported in the case of other large-bodied moths, such as the jasmine moth, Paplita unionalis (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) [16], and the processionary pine moth, Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Denis and Schiffermüller) (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) [17,18]. Based on such incongruent results, there may be an inaccurate estimate of the occurrence of the target species, which may constitute any insecticidal applications mistimed and as such, ineffective.
At the area-wide scale, the estimation of locations that are initially more heavily infested than others is one of the cornerstones of integrated pest management (IPM)-based strategies, through early detection and estimation of population densities [19]. For H. armigera, different studies underline the importance of spatio-temporal mapping at different levels in order to quantify the impact of localized populations, which can be often controlled before their further expansion to wider areas [20,21,22,23]. For instance, the results of a study in a cotton production area in Greece found a certain level of spatial segregation of captures of both H. armigera and P. gossypiella and were used to create maps that could lead into management zones in predefined areas [21]. Similarly, the spatio-temporal distribution of H. armigera in pigeonpea fields in India were used to illustrate optimum sampling plans [23].
All the above studies are focused on the utilization of one single sampling method, i.e., a specific sampling or trapping technique. Nevertheless, the results of such an effort might have been different with the use of a different technique. Thus, the comparison of different techniques towards this objective should be further evaluated, both in terms of detection sensitivity and “co-alteration” or population fluctuation. In this context, we have evaluated, simultaneously, three different trap types in a wide area in order to compare trap performance on the captures of H. armigera. We also depict the distribution of the species per trap in the study area, which is Central Greece, the main cotton-producing geographical zone in the European Union (EU).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Site of Experimentation

The trial was conducted in the region of Moschochori (Phthiotida, Central Greece; latitude: 38°82′ N, longitude: 22°44′ E, elevation above sea level: ~20 m) during the 2015 growing season (Figure 1). The cultivated land of the region has been traditionally a cotton growing area and extends over an area of 12 km2. However, due to the high cotton cultivation cost and the high irrigation requirements, in recent years, local farmers have also turned to alternative crops, such as cereals and legumes.
For the trial, twenty fields were sown in the middle of April with five cotton hybrids, namely, hybrids ST 402 (eight fields), ST 405 (one field), ST 474 (three fields), ST 373 (two fields) (Pioneer Hi-Bred Hellas S.A.), and Babylon (six fields) (House Of Agriculture Spirou S.A.). Common crop care measures were applied to all fields. Contact insecticides, e.g., chlorantraniliprole, chlorpyriphos, and cypermethrin, are commonly applied in the study area during the larval stages of H. armigera. However, during this specific growing period, the insecticidal applications were reduced in comparison with the previous years. Trap monitoring was initiated in the middle of July and was terminated at the end of September. The average daily air temperature during the trial ranged from 17.7 to 29.6 °C, whereas average daily relative humidity was low and did not exceed 26%. Not surprisingly, the highest average daily temperatures were recorded in July and August and were 29.3 and 28.3 °C, respectively (Figure 2). The lowest level of rainfall was recorded in July (11.9 mm), whereas monthly precipitation increased to 50.8 and 74.9 mm in August and September, respectively. The climatic data were provided by the meteorological station of the Vardates Agricultural Research Station of the National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF) (Vardates, Phthiotida, Greece).

2.2. Traps and Pheromones

Funnel traps of three different colors, i.e., green, striped (green umbrella type lid, yellow funnel section, and bucket with black and white stripes) and colored (green umbrella type lid, yellow funnel section, and white bucket) (Hellapharm, Attica, Greece) were used in the trial. Traps were suspended on T-shaped metal poles (1.5 m long), with their lowest part 1 m above the ground. A pheromone lure (Intrachem Hellas Agrochemicals Sole Shareholder Co., Ltd., Athens, Greece) was placed in the pheromone dispenser holder, whereas a paper impregnated with transfluthrin (0.4% w/w, VAPONA, Sarantis SA, Athens, Greece) was placed inside each bucket to kill the captured individuals and prevent them from escaping. The killing agents were replaced every three weeks, whilst new pheromone dispensers were added to the traps every four weeks after the initiation of the trial.

2.3. Experimental Design

One trap from each color was installed on the 14 of July 2015 in each one of the twenty fields selected for experimentation (three traps in total in each field; 20 traps from each trap type; 60 traps in total). Care was taken to place traps at a distance of >50 m from each other. All traps were checked at regular intervals (3–4 d) by emptying the content of the bucket and counting the number of captured adult H. armigera individuals. In total, traps were inspected 18 times. After each trap check, traps were rotated in order to avoid the effect of the individual trap location [14]. Based on the results, maps with the spatial and temporal distribution of H. armigera populations were created using the Surfer 9 (Golden Software Inc., Golden, CO, USA) GIS software.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were submitted to a three-way ANOVA with adult captures as the response variable and trap type, trap check-date, and cotton hybrid as the main effects. For the comparison of the means, the Tukey–Kramer (HSD) test was used at 0.05 significant level [24]. Moreover, in order to evaluate the ‘synchronization’ between pairs of catches among different trap types on the same evaluation time point, the correlation coefficient values were calculated and tested for their departure from zero by using a two-tailed t-test, at n–2 df and at 0.01 significant level. Statistical analysis was performed using JPM 8 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Trap Comparison

The number of captured H. armigera adults was significantly affected by the trap color, the trap check-date, as well as the cotton hybrid (Table 1). The average numbers of captures of H. armigera adults in the three trap types tested are presented in Table 2. During the trial, a total of 2729 H. armigera adults was counted in all traps. At the first trap check-dates, i.e., 17, 20, 23 and 27 July 2015, the number of captures was low (on average < 2 adults/trap) (Table 2). For the same time interval, no statistically significant differences were recorded in most cases among the three trap types (Table 2). The highest numbers of captures were recorded in the beginning of August (1, 4, 9, 12, and 17 August 2015), when captures ranged from 1.6 to 13.6 adults per trap (Table 2). Particularly, on the 12th of August, the cumulative number of captures in all traps reached 427 adults. In most cases, a significantly higher number of adults was recorded for the striped trap compared to the other two trap types, with the exception of 9 August 2015 (Table 2).
Between 20 August and 8 September (20, 24, 28 August and 1, 4, 8 September 2015), the number of captures was reduced and ranged from 0.8 to 3.8 adults per trap (Table 2). In all these dates, the number of captures in the striped trap was significantly higher than in the green trap, with the exception of the 8th of September, whereas, on the 28th of August and on the 4th of September, captures in the striped trap were significantly higher than in the colored trap (Table 2). During the last trap check-dates in September (12, 17, and 20 September 2015), there was an increase in the number of captured H. armigera adults, with the total number of captures ranging between 153 and 394 adults per trap (Table 2). Again, the number of captures in the striped trap was significantly higher than in the green trap, whilst, on the 17 and 20 of September, the average number of captures in the striped trap were significantly higher than the colored trap (Table 2).

3.2. Population Fluctuations per Field

The total captures of adults of H. armigera per field were characterized by high variation among the fields. Indicatively, the highest total number of captures throughout the study was recorded in field 14 [347 adults], whereas only 57 adults were collected from the traps installed in field 2. The average number of captures in each field in the striped, green, and colored trap are presented in Figure 3 (A, B and C, respectively). The average number of captures per field in the striped trap ranged from 1.6 to 12.3 adults, whereas the respective figures for the green and colored traps fluctuated between 0.5 and 2.1 and 1.0 and 7.2 adults, respectively (Figure 3).

3.3. Detection Sensitivity and Correlation

Out of the 1080 trap inspections (60 traps × 18 trap inspection dates), no adults were captured in 32.2% of the cases (348 trap inspections), one adult was captured in 20.1% of the cases, whereas two to nine adults were captured in 42.5% of the trap inspections (Table 3). The same pattern was followed for each trap type (Table 3). More than 10 captured adults were recorded in 12.2, 0.01, and 0.03% of the inspections of the striped, green, and colored trap, respectively. A positive and significant correlation coefficient was recorded between all trap type combinations (Table 4).

3.4. Spatio-Temporal Distribution of H. armigera

The spatio-temporal distribution of the H. armigera population in July in terms of total captures in all trap types is presented in Figure 4. In the first trap check-date, a low number of captures was recorded, indicating a low population density (Figure 4A). It should be noted that this trap check-date coincided with sporadic rainfall in the region. In the following trap inspection dates, the gradual spread of H. armigera was observed (Figure 4B,C), whereas, in the last trap check for this month, the insect population spread was expanded also to the northwest side of the study area (Figure 4D). In August, the population density of H. armigera was considerably increased with most of the captures occurring in the northeast and northwest side of the study area (Figure 5). A peak of the H. armigera population was observed in the beginning and middle of September, with the highest number of captures in the first case being recorded in the traps installed in the central part of the study area and in the second case in the northeast and northwest side (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

The distribution of H. armigera in cotton has been highlighted in a wide range of studies from different parts of the world, while the species has already invaded new areas [8,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Our work indicates that different trap types provide, to some extent, different population fluctuation patterns, with the black stripe trap being the one that captured by far many more adult moths than the other two trap types. This difference is expressed much more vigorously during the periods of increased flight activity, especially during mid-August and mid-September. The black stripe trap has been proved effective in the case of other pests as well, such as the cigarette beetle, Lasioderma serricorne (F.) (Coleoptera: Anobiidae) [31]. In a previous work on cotton in Central Greece, it was found that the black stripe funnel trap was inferior to the white funnel trap regarding captures of H. armigera adults, throughout the entire growing season [15]. In fact, in that study, the authors reported that the white funnel captured approximately five times more adults than the black stripe ones, while the latter captured similar moth numbers with adjacent green funnel traps [15]. In this context, we hypothesize that, in the present study, the occurrence of the white color parts in the black stripe trap might have acted as a strong, attracting visual stimuli, an observation that should, however, be further evaluated with additional experimental work. Similarly, when four different colored sticky traps (white, yellow, blue, and fluorescent yellow) were comparatively evaluated for the monitoring of the onion thrips, Thrips tabaci Lindeman (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), and the western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), the numbers of captured thrips were significantly affected by trap color for both species, indicating specific color preferences for T. tabaci and F. occidentalis [32].
Apart from the trap type, our results provide evidence that trap captures were also significantly affected by the cotton hybrid grown in each field. The effect of the crop variety on the performance of pheromone-baited traps has been rarely investigated. In one of the few relevant published studies, when four different colored sticky traps were comparatively evaluated in fields with four different white cabbage varieties, no significant differences were detected among the numbers of T. tabaci specimens captured [32]. To our knowledge, the effect of crop variety on trap captures has not been previously evaluated for H. armigera.
Regardless of the differences among the different trap types, we have found that the correlation coefficients for the pairs of captures in all trap combinations tested were positive and significant. This denotes that there is a noticeable “synchronization” of the captures of the different trap types through time, i.e., that different trap types provide a similar view of the occurrence of the different generations of H. armigera, as this is denoted by the adult male captures. This is particularly important, as often it is the way that the captures are increased or decreased in comparison with the previous trap check interval that can be considered as an accurate indicator, rather than the overall capture capacity per se. For P. gossypiella adults, it was found that funnel traps provided different population fluctuation trends, as well as different peaks, which could lead to different insecticidal application scenarios [14]. Nevertheless, despite the fact that the correlation of the trap captures was high, there was still a considerable percentage of the variability, which in some cases exceeded 50% of the total that could not be explained by the paired population fluctuation attributes. This fact underlines the complexity of the factors that affect the captures of H. armigera in pheromone-baited traps.
One of the key elements in the trap comparison that was performed here was the detection sensitivity patterns. Hence, the times that no adults were detected in the black stripe trap were more than half than the respective figures for the other two traps, which clearly indicates that the black stripe trap had a higher detection sensitivity than the other two trap types. In other words, the black stripe trap is able to capture H. armigera adult males when the other traps fail to do so. In a study, which evaluated the performance of hanging sticky traps and pitfall traps placed on the ground on the captures of adults of the warehouse beetle, Trogoderma variabile Everts (Coleoptera: Dermestidae), the number of zero captures was triple with hanging traps compared to pitfall traps, and the authors attributed this finding to the traps themselves or their differential placement [33]. Zero captures in certain trap types may give the falsely impression that the population of an insect pest is negligible, while, in reality, there might be considerable population densities in the area on which trapping is performed. Moreover, in the present study, we were able to detect much more times black stripe traps that contained 10–49 adults, as compared with the other two trap types, especially with the green funnel. This may suggest that the trap is more attractive and/or is able to maintain higher numbers of the captured adults that have approached the trap. For L. serricorne, it was found that even unbaited (with no pheromone) black stripe traps were able to capture adults, when a killing agent, organophosphorous insecticide dichlorvos, had been added to prevent the captured individuals from escaping [31].
The results of the present work indicate that there is a considerable spatio-temporal segregation in the different areas on which traps had been suspended, which was influenced by the trap type used. In an earlier work, it was shown that, in the same cotton fields, H. armigera and P. gossypiella had a different spatial pattern, and the latter species had a more focused distribution in certain trapping locations [21]. For P. gossypiella, it was noted that the seasonal distribution in cotton fields varied among the different years, but there was a strong correlation between the captures late in the growing period and the captures in spring of next year [34]. In China, population densities of H. armigera were lower in areas where cotton was the dominant crop, as compared with areas on which the proportions of other crops were higher, underlying the importance of other crops in the establishment of high population densities of this species [35]. Nevertheless, based on our data, we are unaware if some or all of the traps used here provide an over- or under-estimation of the presence of H. armigera.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, the findings of the present study highlight the differential performance of different trap types on the captures of H. armigera. Taking into consideration that the traps tested differed only in the color of the external trap surface, we make the hypothesis that trap color does matter in the case of H. armigera; specifically, brighter colors may be more attractive than darker ones. Additionally, our data provide further evidence for the need of the establishment of a standardized trapping protocol in a given area that should be based on specific trapping devices, but also of standardized trap placement and inspection. The use of different trap types in the same area can, by definition, provide dissimilar results for the seasonal occurrence of H. armigera, which may not be always comparable or interpretable.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.G.A.; methodology, C.G.A.; formal analysis, E.K., C.C., and C.I.R.; investigation, E.K.; resources, C.G.A.; data curation, E.K. and C.I.R.; writing—original draft preparation, C.G.A. and C.I.R.; writing—review and editing, C.G.A. and C.I.R.; visualization, C.C.; supervision, C.G.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fitt, G.P. The ecology of Heliothis species in relation to agroecosystems. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1989, 34, 17–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Riaz, S.; Johnson, J.B.; Ahmad, M.; Fitt, G.P.; Naiker, M. A review on biological interactions and management of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J. Appl. Entomol. 2021, 145, 467–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fitt, G.P. Cotton pest management: Part 3. An Australian perspective. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1994, 39, 543–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Achaleke, J.; Brévault, T. Inheritance and stability of pyrethroid resistance in the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Central Africa. Pest Manag. Sci. 2009, 66, 137–141. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aheer, G.M.; Aziz, M.A.; Hameed, A.; Ali, A. Evaluation of resistance to different insecticides in field strains of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Punjab, Pakistan. Entomol. Res. 2009, 39, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, H.; Yin, W.; Zhao, J.; Jin, L.; Yang, Y.; Wu, S.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Wu, Y. Early warning of cotton bollworm resistance associated with intensive planting of Bt cotton in China. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Abbade-Neto, D.; Amado, D.; Pereira, R.M.; Basso, M.; Spineli-Silva, S.; Gonçalves, T.M.; Corrêa, A.S.; Omoto, C. First report of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) resistance to flubendiamide in Brazil: Genetic basis and mechanisms of the resistance. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kriticos, D.J.; Ota, N.; Hutchison, W.D.; Beddow, J.; Walsh, T.; Tay, W.T.; Borchert, D.M.; Paula-Moreas, S.V.; Czepak, C.; Zalucki, M.P. The potential distribution of invading Helicoverpa armigera in North America: Is it just a matter of time? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0119618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, J.-P.; Salcedo, C.; Fang, Y.-L.; Zhang, R.-J.; Zhang, Z.-N. An overlooked component: (Z)-9-tetradecenal as a sex pheromone in Helicoverpa armigera. J. Insect Physiol. 2012, 58, 1209–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nyambo, B.T. Assessment of pheromone traps for monitoring and early warning of Heliothis armigera Hübner (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in the western cotton-growing areas of Tanzania. Crop Prot. 1989, 8, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Srivastava, C.P.; Srivastava, R.P. Monitoring of Helicoverpa armigera (Hbn.) by pheromone trapping in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J. Appl. Entomol. 1995, 119, 607–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Baker, G.H.; Tann, C.R.; Fitt, G.P. A tale of two trapping methods: Helicoverpa spp. (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in pheromone and light traps in Australian cotton production systems. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2011, 101, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fite, T.; Damte, T.; Tefera, T.; Negeri, M. Evaluation of commercial trap types and lures on the population dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its effects on non-targets insects. Cogent Food Agric. 2020, 6, 1771116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Gravanis, F.T.; Koukounitsas, N.A.; Roussou, D.E. Influence of trap type, pheromone quantity and trapping location on capture of the pink bollworm, Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Appl. Entomol. Zool. 2002, 37, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Karakasis, A.; Lampiri, E.; Rumbos, C.I.; Athanassiou, C.G. Factors affecting adult captures of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in pheromone-baited traps. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Athanassiou, C.G.; 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. 2004, 97, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Parlak, S.; Özçankaya, İ.M.; Batur, M.; Akkaş, M.E.; Boza, Z.; Toprak, Ö. Efficiency of funnel traps in controlling pine processionary moth. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2018, 125, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Trematerra, P.; Colacci, M.; Athanassiou, C.G.; Kavallieratos, N.G.; Rumbos, C.I.; Boukouvala, M.C.; Nikolaidou, A.J.; Kontodimas, D.C.; Benavent-Fernández, E.; Gálvez-Settier, S. Evaluation of mating disruption for the control of Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) in suburban recreational areas in Italy and Greece. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2229–2235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cardim Ferreira Lima, M.; Damascena de Almeida Leandro, M.E.; Valero, C.; Pereira Coronel, L.C.; Gonçalves Bazzo, C.O. Automatic detection and monitoring of insect pests—A review. Agriculture 2020, 10, 161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Moral García, F.J. Analysis of the spatio–temporal distribution of Helicoverpa armigera Hb. in a tomato field using a stochastic approach. Biosyst. Eng. 2006, 93, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Milonas, P.; Gogou, C.; Papadopoulou, A.; Fountas, S.; Liakos, V.; Papadopoulos, N.T. Spatio-temporal distribution of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and Pectinophora gossypiella (Saunders) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in a cotton production area. Neotrop. Entomol. 2016, 45, 240–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Damte, T.; Ojiewo, C.O. Incidence and within field dispersion pattern of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in chickpea in Ethiopia. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2017, 50, 868–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Seethalam, M.; Bapatla, K.G.; Kumar, M.; Nisa, S.; Chandra, P.; Mathyam, P.; Sengottaiyan, V. Characterization of Helicoverpa armigera spatial distribution in pigeonpea crop using geostatistical methods. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 4942–4950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zar, H.J. Biostatistical Analysis; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zalucki, M.P.; Daglish, G.; Firempong, S.; Twine, P. The biology and ecology of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) and H. punctigera Wallengren (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia: What do we know? Aust. J. Zool. 1986, 34, 779–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Guo, Y.Y. Progress in the researches on migration regularity of Helicoverpa armigera and relationships between the pest and its host plants. Acta Entomol. Sin. 1997, 40, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  27. Czepak, C.; Albernaz, K.C. First reported occurrence of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Brazil. Agric. Res. Trop. 2013, 43, 110–113. [Google Scholar]
  28. Murúa, M.G.; Scalora, F.S.; Navarro, F.R.; Cazado, L.E.; Casmuz, A.; Villagrán, M.E.; Lobos, E.; Gastaminza, G. First record of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Argentina. Fla Entomol. 2014, 97, 854–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gilligan, T.M.; Goldstein, P.Z.; Timm, A.E.; Farris, R.; Ledezma, L.; Cunningham, A.P. Identification of Heliothine (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) larvae intercepted at U.S. ports of entry from the new world. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 603–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jones, C.M.; Parry, H.; Tay, W.T.; Reynolds, D.R.; Chapman, J.W. Movement ecology of pest Helicoverpa: Implications for ongoing spread. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2019, 64, 277–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Buchelos, C.T.; Papadopoulou, S.C. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a new pheromonic trap for monitoring Lasioderma serricorne (F.) in tobacco stores. Anz. Schädlingskd. J. Pest Sci. 1999, 72, 92–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Röth, F.; Galli, Z.; Tóth, M.; Fail, J.; Jenser, G. The hypothesized visual system of Thrips tabaci Lindeman and Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) based on different coloured traps’ catches. North West. J. Zool. 2016, 12, 40–49. [Google Scholar]
  33. Campbell, J.F.; Dowdy, A.K.; Mullen, M.A. Monitoring stored-product pests in food processing plants with pheromone trapping, contour mapping, and mark-recapture. J. Econ. Entomol. 2002, 95, 1089–1101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Chu, C.C.; Henneberry, T.J. Pink bollworm seasonal distribution, yearly variation, and male moth trap catch relationships to population increases in cotton. Southwest. Entomol. 1990, 15, 273–280. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lu, Z.Z.; Baker, G. Spatial and temporal dynamics of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae) in contrasting agricultural landscapes in northwestern China. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2013, 59, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 01256 g001 550
Figure 1. Area under study at Phthiotida, Central Greece. Numbers indicate the places of the trial fields.
Figure 1. Area under study at Phthiotida, Central Greece. Numbers indicate the places of the trial fields.
Agronomy 13 01256 g001
Agronomy 13 01256 g002 550
Figure 2. Average daily temperature (solid line) and relative humidity (dashed line) in the area of Moschochori (Phthiotida, Central Greece) during the trial. Data were acquired by the meteorological station of the Vardates Agricultural Research Station of the National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF).
Figure 2. Average daily temperature (solid line) and relative humidity (dashed line) in the area of Moschochori (Phthiotida, Central Greece) during the trial. Data were acquired by the meteorological station of the Vardates Agricultural Research Station of the National Agricultural Research Foundation (NAGREF).
Agronomy 13 01256 g002
Agronomy 13 01256 g003 550
Figure 3. Average number of captures of Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped (A), green (B), and colored (C)) in each field during the trial.
Figure 3. Average number of captures of Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped (A), green (B), and colored (C)) in each field during the trial.
Agronomy 13 01256 g003
Agronomy 13 01256 g004 550
Figure 4. Spatio-temporal distribution of the population of Helicoverpa armigera male adults in the study area in July 2015 ((A): 17 July 2015, (B): 20 July 2015, (C): 23 July 2015, and (D): 27 July 2015).
Figure 4. Spatio-temporal distribution of the population of Helicoverpa armigera male adults in the study area in July 2015 ((A): 17 July 2015, (B): 20 July 2015, (C): 23 July 2015, and (D): 27 July 2015).
Agronomy 13 01256 g004
Agronomy 13 01256 g005 550
Figure 5. Spatio-temporal distribution of the population of Helicoverpa armigera male adults in the study area in August 2015 ((A): 1 August 2015, (B): 4 August 2015, (C): 9 August 2015, (D): 12 August 2015, (E): 17 August 2015, (F): 20 August 2015, (G): 24 August 2015, and (H): 28 August 2015).
Figure 5. Spatio-temporal distribution of the population of Helicoverpa armigera male adults in the study area in August 2015 ((A): 1 August 2015, (B): 4 August 2015, (C): 9 August 2015, (D): 12 August 2015, (E): 17 August 2015, (F): 20 August 2015, (G): 24 August 2015, and (H): 28 August 2015).
Agronomy 13 01256 g005
Agronomy 13 01256 g006 550
Figure 6. Spatio-temporal distribution of the population of Helicoverpa armigera male adults in the study area in September 2015 ((A): 1 September 2015, (B): 4 September 2015, (C): 8 September 2015, (D): 12 September 2015, (E): 17 September 2015, and (F): 20 September 2015).
Figure 6. Spatio-temporal distribution of the population of Helicoverpa armigera male adults in the study area in September 2015 ((A): 1 September 2015, (B): 4 September 2015, (C): 8 September 2015, (D): 12 September 2015, (E): 17 September 2015, and (F): 20 September 2015).
Agronomy 13 01256 g006
Table
Table 1. ANOVA parameters for the main effects (trap type, trap check-date, cotton hybrid) and associated interactions for the number of captured Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped, green, colored).
Table 1. ANOVA parameters for the main effects (trap type, trap check-date, cotton hybrid) and associated interactions for the number of captured Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped, green, colored).
Degrees of FreedomFp
Whole model2692.4<0.001
Intercept 1263.5<0.001
Trap type234.0<0.001
Trap check-date177.9<0.001
Cotton hybrid43.50.008
Trap type × Trap check-date341.60.015
Trap type × Cotton hybrid80.20.993
Trap check-date × Cotton hybrid681.40.020
Trap type × Trap check-date × Cotton hybrid1360.31.0
Table
Table 2. Mean number (±SE) of captures of Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped, green, colored).
Table 2. Mean number (±SE) of captures of Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped, green, colored).
DateTrap Type
StripedGreenColored
17 July 20151.3 ± 0.3 Acd0.4 ± 0.2 Bc0.8 ± 0.2 ABc
20 July 20151.7 ± 0.6 cd0.6 ± 0.2 c0.6 ± 0.4 c
23 July 20151.5 ± 0.5 cd0.4 ± 0.2 c0.7 ± 0.4 c
27 July 20151.8 ± 0.5 cd0.7 ± 0.2 bc0.7 ± 0.2 c
1 August 20154.1 ± 0.5 Acd1.7 ± 0.5 Babc1.8 ± 0.3 Bbc
4 August 20155.7 ± 1.5 Abcd1.6 ± 0.4 Babc1.8 ± 0.4 Bbc
9 August 20154.0 ± 1.0 cd 1.9 ± 0.4 abc1.8 ± 0.4 bc
12 August 201513.6 ± 2.6 Aa2.4 ± 0.7 Bab5.4 ± 1.9 Bab
17 August 20156.5 ± 0.8 Abc1.5 ± 0.3 Babc3.5 ± 0.7 Babc
20 August 20153.1 ± 0.7 Acd0.8 ± 0.3 Bbc1.6 ± 0.4 ABbc
24 August 20151.7 ± 0.3 Acd0.8 ± 0.2 Bbc1.0 ± 0.2 ABc
28 August 20153.5 ± 0.7 Acd1.4 ± 0.3 Babc1.2 ± 0.3 Bc
1 September 20152.9 ± 0.5 Acd1.0 ± 0.3 Bbc2.0 ± 0.6 ABbc
4 September 20153.8 ± 0.7 Acd1.5 ± 0.2 Babc1.7 ± 0.3 Bbc
8 September 20151.0 ± 0.2 d0.8 ± 0.2 bc1.2 ± 0.3 c
12 September 20159.5 ± 2.3 Aab3.0 ± 0.5 Ba7.3 ± 2.1 ABa
17 September 20155.8 ± 0.9 Abcd1.5 ± 0.3 Babc3.3 ± 0.6 Bbc
20 September 20154.1 ± 0.5 Acd1.3 ± 0.3 Babc2.3 ± 0.5 Bbc
For each trap type, means followed by different lowercase letters are significantly different according to Tukey-Kramer HSD test (p < 0.05). For each trap check-date, means followed by different uppercase letters are significantly different according to Tukey-Kramer HSD test (p < 0.05). Where no letters exist, no significant differences were noted.
Table
Table 3. Trap sensitivity for captures of Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped, green, and colored trap) during the trial.
Table 3. Trap sensitivity for captures of Helicoverpa armigera adults in three types of funnel traps (striped, green, and colored trap) during the trial.
Trap TypeTrap Type
StripedGreenColoredTotal
066 (18.3%) *153 (42.5%)129 (35.8%)348 (32.2%)
156 (15.5%)86 (23.9%)75 (20.8%)217 (20.1%)
2–9194 (53.9%)119 (33.1%)146 (40.6%)459 (42.5%)
10–4944 (12.2%)2 (0.01%)10 (0.03%)56 (5.2%)
* numbers in brackets refer to the capture rates for each trap type.
Table
Table 4. Correlation coefficient values for pairs of Helicoverpa armigera captures between different trap types.
Table 4. Correlation coefficient values for pairs of Helicoverpa armigera captures between different trap types.
Trap TypeStripedGreenColored
Striped-0.385 *0.643 *
Green0.385 *-0.406 *
Colored0.643 *0.406 *-
* Statistically significant correlation at p < 0.1%.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karakantza, E.; Rumbos, C.I.; Cavalaris, C.; Athanassiou, C.G. Different Trap Types Depict Dissimilar Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Cotton Fields. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051256

AMA Style

Karakantza E, Rumbos CI, Cavalaris C, Athanassiou CG. Different Trap Types Depict Dissimilar Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Cotton Fields. Agronomy. 2023; 13(5):1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051256

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karakantza, Elina, Christos I. Rumbos, Chris Cavalaris, and Christos G. Athanassiou. 2023. "Different Trap Types Depict Dissimilar Spatio-Temporal Distribution of Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Cotton Fields" Agronomy 13, no. 5: 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13051256

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