Progress 09/01/12 to 08/31/15
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audiences for this project are fruit growers and fruit extension specialists. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Training was provided to one Master's degree student at the University of Connecticut (2012), who has continued to work in the subject of studying SWD behavior. In addition, three students and recent graduates at the University of Rhode Island in the mass trapping experiments in blueberries. As a result of their involvement, they are listed as the first three authors of the Hampton et al., 2014. Also, a postdoctoral associate at Cornell had involvement with assessment of attract and kill techniques in New York.Professional development was provided to extension personnel in New England through workshops in which research results from this project were shared. Extension specialists have been heavily involved with monitoring SWD populations, using the best available traps and lures at the time, as determined through these research efforts. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Each of the university-based investigators participating in this project has contributed to training extension fruit specialists and growers in monitoring and management of SWD. For Cowles, outreach to growers and extension personnel included: 2012 Plant Science Day (CAES Field Day), Aug. 1; Twilight UMass growers' meeting, Westfield, MA, Oct. 11; Research update to research and extension specialists, Geneva, NY, Nov. 1; New England Vegetable and Berry Growers Association, Portsmouth, NH, Dec. 1; CT Pomological Soc., Dec. 4; Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey meeting, Dec. 10; webinar with fruit extension specialists across Canada, Dec. 18 2013 Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers Association, Jan. 28; Cornell-hosted fruit webinar, Feb. 14; presentation to Red Tomato marketing group, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, March 12; meeting with DowAgro Sciences representatives, March 27; conference call with NERIPM co-investigators, March 28; SWD regional fruit extension specialist workshop, Windsor, CT, April 24; Cornell berry specialist call-in, July 30; SWD working group meeting, Bridgeton, NJ, October 29 - 30; Univ. Massachusetts departmental seminar, December 2; CT Pomological Society annual meeting, Dec. 3; New England Vegetable and Berry Growers meeting, Manchester, NH, Dec. 17 and Dec. 19. 2014 CT Wine Grape Growers Assoc., Jan. 27; University of Vermont departmental seminar, January 31; Meeting with BioIberica researchers in CT, March 10; Eastern Branch Entomol. Soc., Williamsburg, VA, March 16 (presentations by RSC and Heather Faubert [URI]); Red Tomato marketing group, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, March 19; CT Pomol. Soc. twilight grower's meeting, June 10; IR-4 Northeast regional meeting, Aug. 20; National IR-4 Meeting, Atlanta, GA, Sept. 10; SWD workshop, Highland, NY, Sept. 16; Entomological Society of America national meeting, Portland, OR, Nov. 18; IR-4 conference call, Dec. 8; 2015 Progressive Grower Agricultural Supply educational seminar, RI, Jan. 16; Marrone Biosciences webinar, June 10; American Chemical Society meeting, Boston, MA, Aug. 17 For Loeb, outreach to growers, educators, and industry representatives that focused on objectives of this project include: 2014 Geneva, NY, 1 hour webinar on invasive pests of small fruit and vegetable crops hosted by PSU and Cornell as part of a series of webinars on vegetables and small fruit crops; Syracuse, NY. 23 January 2014, 30 minute talk as part of the spotted wing drosophila symposium held at the Empire State 2014 Producers Expo; Syracuse, NY, 30 minute talk as part of the spotted wing drosophila symposium held at the Empire State 2014 Producers Expo; Hershey, PA, 30 minute talk at the annual meeting of the National Raspberry and Blackberry Association; Geneva, NY, 45 minute web x presentation hosted by Pam Fisher with Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food; Grand Rapids, MI, 25 minute presentation at the Great Lakes Expo as part of the Berries session; Syracuse, NY, multiple relevant presentations at Spotted Wing Drosophila Winter Regional Workshop sponsored by NYS BGA and Cornell University; 2015 Albany, NY, multiple relevant presentations at Spotted Wing Drosophila Winter Regional Workshop sponsored by NYS BGA and Cornell University; Batavia, NY, Syracuse, NY, multiple relevant presentations at Spotted Wing Drosophila Winter Regional Workshop sponsored by NYS BGA and Cornell University; Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, 30 minute presentation at the 2015 Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Conference. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1) Our 2015 publication in Journal of Economic Entomology showed thatthe addition of sugar with insecticides increased insecticide effectiveness. Measured improvements included a shorter time required to reach the LT50 (for spinosad), and a 50% reduction in the LD50 when sugar was added (to acetamiprid). A threshold concentration for sucrose to elicit a response from SWD adults was 0.1%, or 0.83 lb per 100 gallons of spray mixture. However, to improve expected sucrose residual activity, field tests were standardized to use 2 lb of sucrose per 100 gallons of spray mixture. Surprisingly, both insecticides requiring ingestion (e.g., spinosyns) and contact insecticides, like bifenthrin were improved. Such insecticide plus sucrose mixtures were found to enhance most insecticides in the field/laboratory bioassays. In our second year of field tests for insecticide programs, we compared biorational insecticides (alternating spinosyn with acetamiprid) either sprayed alone or enhanced with sucrose, with conventional insecticides. The spinosyns/acetamiprid program without sugar resulted in 52%, addingsucrose to the spray improved the protection of fruit to 76%, whereas the bifenthrin/phosmet alternating treatment program with conventional insecticides (sprayed without sucrose) resulted in 65% reduction of infestation reduction in blueberry infestation relative to the untreated check. A similar test in day-neutral strawberries demonstrated that a spinosad + sucrose weekly spray was not significantly different from a weekly spray with bifenthrin, whereas the spinosad applied without sucrose was not statistically different than the untreated check. Objective 2) Approximately 150 strains of Bacillus thuringiensis from the USDA collection were tested. Bt isolates were tested as suspensions of cells, as toxins solubilized with 0.1 M sodium carbonate, or as toxins both solubilized and partially digested with trypsin. These variously modified Bt materials were then tested to determine whether they had activity against SWD adults, by feeding them with sucrose, or by incorporating the Bt into SWD media to observe effects on larval development. None of the Bt isolates were toxic to either SWD adults or larvae. Objective 3) Two locations (one in NJ, one in CT) were found with Drosophila spp. cadavers (not D. suzukii) infected with Entomophthora muscae in 2013. Large numbers of Delia radicans infected with E. muscae were obtained in CT during 2014. Infected flies were partially embedded in water agar so that the abdomens projected downwards from Petri dishes inverted over caged adult SWD. In both years, despite repeated attempts to initiate infection using this standard infection protocol, no infections in SWD resulted. Objective 4) Vinegar caused dosage dependent phytotoxicity to open blossoms and foliage. Apple cider vinegar titrated to pH 6 and applied at 10% dilution caused no injury to either foliage or flowers. However, sprays of neutralized vinegar did not attract SWD adults, making this approach unsuitable for deploying with an attract-and-kill strategy. Objective 5) Baits and traps tested in 2013 were highly competitive with nearby fruit (as determined by significant trap catches). Attractant baits that performed well in competition with ripe blueberries and raspberries included a thin whole-wheat fermenting bait, SuzukiiTrap bait manufactured by BioIberica Company, and experimental formulations being designed in collaboration with ISCA Technologies (Riverside, CA). In 2013, the most effective trap design was found to be the red cup trap with a black stripe, into which was punched 40 one-eighth inch diameter openings for flies to enter. These holes are small enough to exclude many non-target insects collected by other trap designs (such as the modified McPhail trap). In a key experiment the number of flies captured through drowning in these traps was found to only be about 10 - 30% of the total number of flies visiting the surface of the traps, indicating that placement of phagostimulant-laced insecticide on outside of these trapswould improving this trap's design for attempted SWD annihilation. Follow-up tests during 2014 in CT, NY, NJ, RI, and OR using red cup traps sprayed with a mixture of boric acid and sucrose, and placed at a density of 100 traps per acre. Use of these attract-and-kill traps did not result in any degree of blueberry fruit protection from infestation, as compared with neighboring and carefully matched untreated fields. However, captures of flies in these treated traps indicated that there was an apparent reduction in the number of male flies in treated fields. A laboratory test with caged flies and a treated trap demonstrated that the boric acid and sugar combination was more toxic to the male flies, which would explain both the sex ratio shift in the trapped field, relative to nearby areas, and the poor performance in protecting fruit - females remained alive long enough to lay eggs into fruit. Further laboratory dose-response bioassays determined that the difference between susceptibility of male and female SWD to the boric acid and sugar combination was accounted for by the greater body weight of the female flies. Additional tests of traps with liquid bait in 2014 resulted in a modified McPhail trap that could be inexpensively manufactured from a 2-L carbonated beverage bottle. This trap was found in field tests to be much more efficient than the red cup trap at retaining flies, thereby removing the need for insecticide to be applied to the outside of the trap. A trap density experiment in 2015 investigated the effect of trap density (using the 2-L bottle traps) on overall numbers of flies captured, and whether this led to protection of blueberries from infestation. There was a nearly linear response relating total trap catch to the number of traps deployed, signifying that the catch per trap was nearly constant, and thus was not influenced significantly by the proximity of surrounding traps. Hence, it is unlikely that sufficient numbers of traps could be deployed to affect the overall population dynamics of SWD. Tests of the attract-and-kill approach in 2014 were not all negative. The red cups with attractant bait, sprayed on the outside with the boric acid and sugar, were deployed at a trap density of 100 traps per acre in three additional blueberry fields in CT. The intent in these fields was to use the traps for intensive monitoring, so that the fields would only be sprayed once the trap catches reached particular thresholds (1, 5, or 10 flies per trap per week). The lowest trap threshold was not reached until after harvest was complete in one field, was never reached, even though SWD were present, in a second field, and SWD were never detected in the third field. None of these fields were sprayed during fruiting, yet the no blueberries were lost due to SWD injury in these fields. This trial demonstrated that intensive monitoring with effective traps can be used with thresholds to minimize the need for spraying blueberries. Key differences between these fields and the field in CT used for the matched field comparison (of attract-and-kill vs. no trapping) were the crop loads. The crop load for the matched field comparison was excessive, relative to the ability to harvest ripe fruit in a timely manner. A high crop load and inefficient harvest undoubtedly increased the likelihood that SWD populations could increase unchecked. However, this also implicates clean harvest of ripe fruit as the key determinant for limiting risk from SWD, rather than high efficiency of the attract-and-kill trapping for protecting fruit from damage. Thus, mass trapping is best suited for monitoring populations and for indicating the need for sprays, complementing other practices that more directly limit SWD damage.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Hampton, E., C. Koski, O. Barsoian, H. Faubert, R. S. Cowles, and S. R. Alm. 2014. Use of early ripening cultivars to avoid infestation and mass trapping to manage spotted wing drosophila, Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae), in highbush blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum, (Ericales: Ericaceae). Journal of Economic Entomology 107:1849 - 57.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Cowles, R. S., C. Rodriguez-Saona, R. Holdcraft, G. M. Loeb, J. E. Elsensohn, and S. P. Hesler. 2015. Sucrose improves insecticide activity against Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 108: 640 - 53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jee/tou100
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Cha D.- H., S. P. Hesler, R. S. Cowles, H. Vogt, G. M. Loeb and P. J. Landolt. 2013. Comparison of a synthetic chemical lure and standard fermented baits for trapping Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Environmental Entomology 42:1052 - 1060.
|
Progress 09/01/13 to 08/31/14
Outputs
Target Audience: The target audiences for this project are fruit growers and fruit extension specialists. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Training was provided to three students and recent graduates at the University of RI in the mass trapping experiments in blueberries. As a result of their outstanding efforts, they are listed as the first three authors of the Hampton, et al., paper published in 2014. Professional development was provided to extension personnel in New England through workshops in which these research results were shared. Extension specialists have been heavily involved with monitoring SWD populations, using the best available traps and lures, as determined through these research efforts. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Extension specialists trained through our SWD workshops, and the participating researchers of this project, routinely give oral presentations to grower groups to inform them on the outcomes from our research program. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? One of the many challenges in formulating the best baits and traps to use in the field to target SWD, especially through mass trapping, is that the trap must be highly effective and yet must also be inexpensive. The two component bait that performed so well in the multi-state trials in 2013 has two deficiencies: it requires considerable labor to service this bait, and the whole wheat based attractant can putrefy, which then leads to attraction of carrion beetles and further disgusting messiness. The red cup trap that works quite well is not convenient due to difficulty for individuals to obtain the proper lids (they have to be purchased in bulk), punching holes of the right size is impractical on a large scale, and it will not perform well with an attract and kill program because the surface of the trap needs to be protected from erosion by rainfall of the sugar plus insecticide mixture. For monitoring purposes, the commercial baits based upon attractants discovered by Cha and Landolt perform very well. They are commercially available through Trece and other companies. For mass trapping, such an attractant would be prohibitively expensive. Homemade kombucha as a liquid bait has many advantages, as it is a product fermented with the same sort of microorganisms associated with SWD: acid loving yeasts (probably Hanseniaspora spp.) and Acetobacter spp. bacteria. A bottle trap has been constructed from a 2-L carbonated beverage bottle, and workson the same principles as a McPhail trap. This bottle trapis a major advance over the cup trap. Starting materials are inexpensive, the trap is relatively easy to make, and having the opening at the bottom of the trap will be compatible with use of insecticide + sugar baited sprays in an attract-and-kill program. The 2-L bottle trap with the small head space is statistically indistinguishable in trap efficiency from the Trappit design, which costs about $12 per trap. The material cost for the bottle trap is about $0.07 per trap, and it takes 5 – 10 minutes to convert a 2-L bottle into such a trap. In 2015, I anticipate continued tests of mass trapping, using all the advances described above in terms of attractant bait, traps, and insecticides used in conjunction with the traps.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1. The addition of sucrose to insecticides targetingSWD enhanced lethality in laboratory, semi-field, and field tests. In the laboratory, 0.1% sucrose added to a spray solution enhanced SWD feeding. Flies died 120 min earlier when exposed to spinosad residues at label rates enhanced with sucrose. Added sucrose reduced the LD50 for dried acetamiprid residues from 82 to 41 ppm in the spray solution. Laboratory bioassays of SWD mortality followed exposure to grape and blueberry foliage and/or fruit sprayed and aged in the field. On grape foliage, the addition of 2.4 g/L of sugar with insecticide sprays resulted in an 11 and 6% increase of SWD mortality at 1 and 2 d exposures to residues, respectively, averaged over seven insecticides with three concentrations. In a separate experiment, spinetoram and cyantraniliprole reduced by 95 – 100% the larval infestation of blueberries, relative to the untreated control, 7 d after application at labeled rates when applied with 1.2 g/L sucrose in a spray mixture, irrespective of rainfall; without sucrose infestation was reduced by 46 – 91%. Adding sugar to the organically acceptable spinosyn, Entrust, reduced larval infestation of strawberries by over 50% relative to without sugar for 5 of 6 sample dates during a season-long field trial. In a small-plot field test with blueberries, weekly applications in alternating sprays of sucrose plus reduced-risk insecticides spinetoram or acetamiprid reduced larval infestation relative to the untreated control by 76%; alternating bifenthrin and phosmet (without sucrose) reduced infestation by 65%. Objective 2. Approximately 150 Bt isolates from the USDA collection were sujected to bioassays against SWD adults and larvae. None of the isolates had any significant activity against SWD. Objective 3. Large numbers of anthomyids freshly killed by Entomophthora muscae were obtained during the summer of 2014. These flies were used to attempt inoculation of SWD adults. No infections occurred. Objective 4.We found in field tests that(1) vinegar has been found on its own to not be an effective attractant to SWD, and (2) vinegar at concentrations that could be attractive to SWD caused phytotoxicity to strawberry flowers and fruits. Therefore, discretesources of attractants (associated with liquid baits held within traps, or use of attractants formulated into gels) willbe more practical for field applications. Objective 5.Considerable efforts have been expended to improve both attractants and traps in which they may be used.In 2013, attractant trapswere red 18 fluid ounce cups with perforations near the lid, containing a combination of apple cider vinegar and fermenting whole wheat dough. These traps placed within blueberry bushesincreased nearby berry infestation by 5%, irrespective of cultivar and harvest date. The significant linear reduction in infestation with increasing distance from the attractant trap suggests that traps are influencing fly behavior to at least 5.5 m. Insecticides applied to the exterior of this design of trap, compared with untreated traps, revealed that only 10 – 30% of flies visiting traps enter the traps and drown. Low trap efficiency may jeopardize surrounding fruits by increasing local SWD activity. In a test conducted during 2014 to see whether insecticide placed on the outside of this design of trap couldprotect blueberry crops, traps werearranged ina 20 foot grid pattern within fields in CT, NJ, NY, OR, and RI. These fields were paired with untreated fields that had not traps and were not treated with insecticides. A mixture of 5% boric acid and 10% sucrose was applied to the surface of trapsin an attract-and-kill strategy. Results from CT (results from the other statesstill need to be fully analyzed)indicate that the insecticide chosen for this trial was selectively toxic to males, which was not useful for reducing the overall SWD population. Further enhancements will be required to determine whether the attract-and-kill approach can provide an economic level of fruit protection.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Hampton, E., C. Koski, O. Barsoian, H. Faubert, R. S. Cowles, and S. R. Alm. 2014. Use of early ripening cultivars to avoid infestation and mass trapping to manage Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) in Vaccinium corymbosum (Ericales: Ericaceae). J. Econ. Entomol. 107: 1849 - 1857.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Awaiting Publication
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Cowles, R. S., C. Rodriguez-Saona, R. Holdcraft, G. M. Loeb, J. E. Elsensohn, and S. P. Hesler. 2015. Sucrose improves insecticide activity against Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). J. Econ. Entomol. In press.
|
Progress 09/01/12 to 08/31/13
Outputs
Target Audience: The target audience for this project are fruit growers and fruit extension specialists. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Each of the university-based investigators participating in this project has contributed to training extension fruit specialists and growers in monitoring and management of SWD. In addition, Dr. Cowles has hosted a New England regional SWD workshop in 2012 and 2013, organized by Glen Koehler (University of Maine Cooperative Extension), and supported by NERIPM. These meetings led to coordination in monitoring efforts throughout the region and use of the best available monitoring traps for each year. Specific meetings for which Dr. Cowles participated were: Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers Association, Jan. 28; Cornell-hosted fruit webinar, Feb. 14; presentation to Red Tomato marketing group, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, March 12; meeting with DowAgro Sciences representatives, March 27; conference call with NERIPM co-investigators, March 28; SWD regional fruit extension specialist workshop, Windsor, CT, April 24; Cornell berry specialist call-in, July 30; SWD working group meeting, Bridgeton, NJ, October 29 – 30; Univ. Massachusetts departmental seminar, December 2; CT Pomological Society annual meeting, Dec. 3; New England Vegetable and Berry Growers meeting, Manchester, NH, Dec. 17 and Dec. 19. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Each of the university-based investigators participating in this project has contributed to training extension fruit specialists and growers in monitoring and management of SWD. In addition, Cowles has hosted a New England regional SWD workshop in 2012 and 2013, organized by Glen Koehler (University of Maine Cooperative Extension), and supported by NERIPM. These meetings led to coordination in monitoring efforts throughout the region and use of the best available monitoring traps for each year. Specific meetings for which Cowles participated were: Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers Association, Jan. 28; Cornell-hosted fruit webinar, Feb. 14; presentation to Red Tomato marketing group, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY, March 12; meeting with DowAgro Sciences representatives, March 27; conference call with NERIPM co-investigators, March 28; SWD regional fruit extension specialist workshop, Windsor, CT, April 24; Cornell berry specialist call-in, July 30; SWD working group meeting, Bridgeton, NJ, October 29 – 30; Univ. Massachusetts departmental seminar, December 2; CT Pomological Society annual meeting, Dec. 3; New England Vegetable and Berry Growers meeting, Manchester, NH, Dec. 17 and Dec. 19. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? We will continue to follow our original work plan, with possible modifications guided by developments and improvements to attractants, insecticidal baits, etc…
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1) Determine effectiveness and refine bait formulation of insecticides for protecting fruit from damage by SWD, relative to conventional standard treatments. The addition of 2 lb of sucrose per 100 gallons of spray mixture was found to enhance most insecticides in the field/laboratory bioassays. The field assessment method was found not to be efficient, probably because SWD adults are too mobile and so plot treatment effects are homogeneous unless conducted in caged tests. Growers have already adopted use of sugar with their sprays to improve management of SWD. Objective 2) Conduct bioassays of Bacillus thuringiensis isolates to identify strains active against SWD adults. Strains of Bacillus thuringiensis (about 150 isolates) from the USDA collection were found to not be toxic to either SWD adults or larvae. No further strains of Bt will be tested. Objective 3) Conduct laboratory selection of Entomophthora muscae to develop a strain with high virulence to SWD. Two locations (one in NJ, one in CT) were found with Drosophila cadavers infected with Entomophthora muscae. Attempts to reinitiate sporulation from these cadavers and cause infection in Drosophila have so far been unsuccessful, but are continuing. Objective 4) Determine the concentration of vinegar that may safely (regarding phytotoxicity) be used in attractant sprays to crops or surrounding vegetation. Vinegar caused dosage dependent phytotoxicity to open blossoms and foliage. Apple cider vinegar titrated to pH 6 and applied at 10% dilution causes no injury to either foliage or flowers. Because we have not found vinegar by itself to be particularly attractive to SWD adults, we are not pursuing spraying vinegar to manipulate their behavior. Objective 5) Develop effective lure and trap systems and attract-and-kill stations, and determine optimum field placement of traps and attract-and-kill stations for mass trapping or annihilation of SWD adults. Baits and traps tested in 2013 were highly competitive with nearby fruit (as determined by significant trap catches). Attractant baits that perform well in competition with ripe blueberries and raspberries include a thin whole-wheat fermenting bait, SuzukiiTrap bait manufactured by BioIberica Company, and experimental formulations being designed in collaboration with ISCA Technologies (Riverside, CA). Attractancy relative to apple cider vinegar (assigned a value of 1) for the various baits are approximately 3 for synthetic lures (PJL lab), 7 for the standard yeast bait (Rufus Isaacs, Michigan State University), 14 for the SuzukiiTrap bait (BioIberica Co., Spain) and the thin whole wheat plus apple cider vinegar recipe (RSC lab), 28 for an experimental formulation from ISCA Technologies, and 50 for a raspberry infused vinegar. The Rodriguez-Saona lab efforts have determined that raspberries are the most attractive undamaged host to SWD, and so it is clear that addition of raspberry or other cane fruit volatiles to attractant mixtures may increase their attractancy. The most effective trap design was found to be the red cup trap with a black stripe, into which is punched 40 one-eight inch diameter openings for flies to enter. These holes are small enough to exclude many non-target insects collected by other trap designs (such as the modified McPhail trap). In a key experiment, the number of flies captured through drowning in these traps was found to only be about 10 – 30% of the total number of flies visiting the surface of the traps, indicating that placement of phagostimulant-laced insecticide on outside of these traps will be essential for improving mass trapping.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Cha D.- H., S. P. Hesler, R. S. Cowles, H. Vogt, G. M. Loeb and P. J. Landolt. 2013. Comparison of a synthetic chemical lure and standard fermented baits for trapping Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae). Environmental Entomology 42:1052-1060.
Cowles, R. S. Seeing spots: Dealing with SWD. Connecticut Gardener. July/August 2013, pp. 6 7.
|