Little or no useful reduction in mating was seen in the treated plots. al- though reduction in one test was marginally significant.
Comments: Leonard,” in a review of this pheromone ntest. suggested that the results may have been poor because of trap design or the emission rate of the lure. Granett" and Beroza et al.“ both noted that the disparlure was mixed with the trap adhesive, so the bait was subject to aging, and release rates were low. Therefore, because of faulty traps, the test was inconclusive in determining whether mass trapping has potential for gypsy moth control according to http://mikesthoughts.drupalgardens.com/content/best-pheromones-colony-2015.
Test 3 — Somerset County, Pa., 1971, 1972”
Design: Tube traps like those used in Test 2 were dropped into a low but poorly defined natural population of gypsy moths at the rates of 6.1 (1971) or 28/ha (1972) or, in the case of three 40-ha areas known to contain fertile egg masses, at the rate of 84/ha.
Results: Numerous males were captured in traps, but post-season egg mass counts as high as 500/ ha were found; thus, population eradication was not achieved. Comments: The comments of Granett“ regarding Test 2 seems to apply here also. I also note that the population levels described by Cameron violate the theoretical requirements recently set forth by Knipling;" that is, unless the attractant source is much more potent than a feral female, mass pheromone trapping must be confined to very low- level populations. Check out the top-rated pheromones for 2015 | http://baids.org/?p=9
The mass-trapping tests conducted by Beroza and associates had similar inconclusive results and can be summarized as follows:
Test 4 — Dauphin Island, La., 1972
Design: This pheromone test was conducted preseason in Louisiana and actually preceded Test 2, and hence was the basis of Cameron's later trials. Tube traps, baited with 500 pg disparlure as described for Test 2 and 3, were used in this test. A total of 404 traps were aerially dropped into a l6—ha block. The purpose was to prevent released laboratory-reared males from finding Johnson monitor traps baited with 10 pg of racemic disparlure (thought at the time to be equivalent to a virgin female).
Each week for 8 weeks, from 250 to 300 male gypsy moths were released into the plots with the tube traps as well as into a control plot that had only the Johnson monitor trap present. Learn more at http://sundowndivers.org/?p=82.
Results: The tube traps were effective in intercepting males before they could find
the Johnson monitor traps, and a 94% “suppression” of captures (compared to the A
control) was obtained (see Reference 44 and Table 1). Comments: As Granett noted,“ no monitor females were used in this test; therefore, the results, though positive, must be considered preliminary. More pheromones at http://sundowndivers.org/?p=82.
Perhaps this test succeeded because the traps used were freshly made and not aged. Those used in the unsuccessful Tests 2 and 3 were coated several months in advance of the flight sea- son; Beroza et al." found that the disparlure content had deteriorated badly when in contact with Tack-Trap, which may explain the discrepancy between the favora- ble results of Test 4 compared to Tests 2 and 3. Test 5 — Quabbin Island, Mass., 1974" Design: An entire 600-ha island in the Quabbin Reservoir was treated twice with carbaryl for suppression of gypsy moth larvae and then divided into three sections.
Section 1 received a pheromone treatment of 20 g disparlure per hectare in a male confusion study. Section 2 received no further treatment. Section 3 was mass trap- ped using a total of 4500 high-potency (16 mg racemlc disparlure per trap) traps set out at the rate of 25/ha. A type of pheromone trap was used.