|
2004 Canola Insect Pest Trapping Network
Janet J. Knodel, Area Extension Specialist - Crop Protection
Lorilie Atkinson, Research Specialist
North Central Research and Extension Center, Minot, ND
Objective:
To monitor
for two insect pests of canola using pheromone traps in the major canola growing
areas of North Dakota: Bertha armyworm (Mamestra configurata), and
Diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). Trap data provided growers,
Ag consultants, Ag field researchers, and county extension agents/specialists
with an “early” risk warning system of when the pest were active and how many.
Results and Discussion
Bertha Armyworm:
The peak
flight for Bertha armyworms occurred during mid-July, one to two weeks later
than 2003. Highest trap catches were located at trap sites in the northern
tier of North Dakota – Cavalier, Burke, and Botineau Counties (Table 1).
For example, Langdon and Bowbells had a total of 100 and 85 moths per season,
respectively. All trap sites had cumulative trap catches below 300 and
were at “low” risk of larval infestation. Sites with no or few bertha
armyworms included all of the Minnesota and southwestern North Dakota trap
sites. The cumulative number of moths during 2003 was only 573 with an
average of 16 moths per trap day from 14 trap sites in 10 counties in North
Dakota and 4 sites in northwestern Minnesota.
In Table 2,
the cumulative number of moths per trap season and the average number of moths
per trap day are listed from 1998 through 2004. Overall, the 2004 trapping
season shows a dramatic decrease in cumulative trap catches from previous years.
The average moth per trap day was also about 80% lower than the averages in 2003
(Table 2). In summary, the bertha armyworm population did not need to be
controlled in the 2004 canola crop. It appears that local populations are
decreasing in the areas with past histories of high pheromone trap catches.
Monitoring efforts should be
continued to track any potential increases in Bertha armyworm populations.
Diamondback Moths:
Diamondback moth migrated into North Dakota in mid to late May. The first
flight of diamondback moths was later than normal about mid-late June in the
North Central Region of North Dakota. The second flight occurred mid to
late July. There was probably a third generation in late August. The
total number of diamondback moths captured was 7,183 moths with an average of
131 moths per trap day from 14 trap sites in 10 counties of North Dakota and 4
trap sites from northwest Minnesota (Table 3). These numbers are slightly
lower than last year’s trap counts (Table 2). Field scouting is usually
necessary when more than 100 diamondback moths are captured per trap week for
several weeks prior to bloom to early bud development. In 2004,
diamondback moth arrived in low numbers late, and canola fields did not suffered
any yield losses due to injury. Sites with the highest trap count of >500
moths per trap season included: Ward, Slope, Stark, and McKenzie Counties of
North Dakota, and all four trap sites in Minnesota.
Canola Insect Trapping Network Web Site:
Data for the
Canola Insect Trapping Network was updated weekly on the NC Research Extension
Center’s webpage under “Insect Trap Monitoring and Insecticide Projects” during
the 2004 field season:
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/minot/pest/index.htm
Please see the
website for more information from the different field sites.
Table 1. 2004 BERTHA ARMYWORM SUMMARY – sorted by trap site in
descending order of total number for moths per trap season.
|
County |
Site |
Total
#
Moths |
Total
Trap
Days |
Moth/
Trapping
Day |
Moth/
Trapping
Week |
|
Cavalier |
Langdon |
100 |
26 |
4 |
27 |
|
Burke |
NE
Bowbells |
85 |
28 |
3 |
21 |
|
Burke |
N
Bowbells |
72 |
28 |
3 |
18 |
|
Burke |
Columbus |
65 |
28 |
2 |
16 |
|
Bottineau |
Bottineau |
61 |
37 |
2 |
12 |
|
Bottineau |
Kramer |
44 |
37 |
1 |
8 |
|
Renville |
Mohall |
44 |
49 |
1 |
6 |
|
Ward |
Carpio |
25 |
18 |
1 |
10 |
|
Ward |
Minot |
20 |
49 |
0 |
3 |
|
Divide |
Crosby |
17 |
41 |
0 |
3 |
|
McKenzie |
Arnegard |
12 |
43 |
0 |
2 |
|
Pennington |
Thief River Falls |
8 |
29 |
0 |
2 |
|
Williams |
Williston |
7 |
27 |
0 |
2 |
|
Marshall |
Grygla |
5 |
27 |
0 |
1 |
|
Slope |
New
England |
4 |
42 |
0 |
1 |
|
Kittson |
Kennedy |
2 |
37 |
0 |
0 |
|
Stark |
Dickinson |
2 |
48 |
0 |
0 |
|
Roseau |
Roseau |
0 |
31 |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Bertha Armyworm Summary |
Numbers |
|
|
Total number of Moths |
573 |
|
|
Average Trap Day |
35 |
|
|
Average Moth per Trap Day |
16 |
Table 2. Pheromone Trap Catches for Bertha Armyworm and Diamondback moth - 1998
to 2003.
|
|
Year |
Bertha Armyworm |
Diamondback Moth |
|
Total # Moth per trap
season |
Average moth per trap
day |
Total # Moth per trap
season |
Average moth per trap day |
|
|
1998 |
2739 |
94 |
11348 |
195 |
|
|
1999 |
1939 |
39 |
5900 |
112 |
|
|
2000 |
1132 |
21 |
6515 |
123 |
|
|
2001 |
5003 |
87 |
17901 |
311 |
|
|
2002 |
6002 |
188 |
8174 |
195 |
|
|
2003 |
3607 |
86 |
8802 |
210 |
|
|
2004 |
573 |
16 |
7183 |
131 |
Table 2. 2004 DIAMONDBACK MOTH SUMMARY – sorted by trap site in descending
order for total number of moths per trap season.
County
|
Site |
Total
#
Moths |
Total
Trap
Days |
Moth/
Trapping
Day |
Moth/
Trapping
Week |
|
Ward |
Minot |
906 |
89 |
10 |
71 |
|
Slope |
New
England |
770 |
59 |
13 |
91 |
|
Stark |
Dickinson |
736 |
68 |
11 |
76 |
|
Kittson |
Kennedy |
700 |
31 |
23 |
158 |
|
Bottineau |
Bottineau |
592 |
57 |
10 |
73 |
|
Pennington |
Thief
River Falls |
552 |
41 |
13 |
94 |
|
McKenzie |
Arnegard |
508 |
63 |
8 |
56 |
|
Roseau |
Roseau |
452 |
28 |
16 |
113 |
|
Bottineau |
Kramer |
257 |
57 |
5 |
32 |
|
Cavalier |
Langdon |
244 |
26 |
9 |
66 |
|
Burke
|
N
Bowbells |
231 |
68 |
3 |
24 |
|
Marshall |
Grygla |
231 |
31 |
7 |
52 |
|
Renville |
Mohall |
224 |
89 |
3 |
18 |
|
Williams |
Williston |
204 |
42 |
5 |
34 |
|
Burke
|
NE
Bowbells |
197 |
68 |
3 |
20 |
|
Divide |
Crosby |
185 |
56 |
3 |
23 |
|
Burke |
Columbus |
122 |
68 |
2 |
13 |
|
Ward |
Carpio |
72 |
54 |
1 |
9 |
|
|
Diamondback Moth Summary |
Numbers |
|
|
Total
number of Moths |
7183 |
|
|
Average
Trap Day |
55 |
|
|
Average
Moth per Trap Day |
131 |
Acknowledgments:
Authors would like to thank the numerous trap cooperators, which included County
Extension Agents, Area Extension Specialists, Crop Consultants in North Dakota
and Minnesota for making this a successful network.
|