Locomotion activity meter for quality assessment of mass-reared sterile male moths (Lepidoptera).
LBAM is an invasive tortricid from southeastern Australia, and its current known distribution outside of its natural range includes New Zealand, the USA, and some European countries (Suckling & Brockerhoff 2010). Sterility has been examined in the context of the SIT and modeled with competitiveness parameters to estimate the over-flooding ratio required for population suppression (Kean et al. 2011).
The SIT requires assessment of the effects of irradiation and other factors on insect quality (Vreysen 2005), and considerable effort has been expended on this for fruit flies (Caceres et al. 2007), and more recently moths (Simmons et al. 2010). Many authors have used simple activity measures for flies, such as flight ability out of a cylinder, but this approach may have limitations for moths. Carpenter et al. (2012) described a very cost-effective and simple bioassay for assessing the quality of sterilized codling moths for both field and laboratory by counting the number of released moths that have flown from a cylinder over a period of around 3 days. While this assay is effective and affordable, it does come at the expense of time.
Wind tunnel assessment has been used to determine the effect of irradiation and other factors on male Australian painted apple moth arrival at a female (Suckling et al. 2004; Stephens et al. 2006) with quality assessment performed weekly during the painted apple moth eradication program in New Zealand (Suckling et al. 2004; Simmons et al. 2010). The evaluation proved to be valuable at detecting and improving insect quality by altering the handling process (Stephens et al. 2006). The reduction in quality caused by irradiation was used in a model designed to estimate the over-flooding ratio (Kean et al. 2007) during the male-only release program. Digital tracking of LBAM flight behavior in a wind tunnel also found some effect of irradiation on male quality of individuals, which was evident in the field with recaptures in hedgerows and vineyards (Suckling et al. 2011). The need for specialized facilities or release into the environment (which adds variables) reduces the practicality of this approach for routine assessment of quality.
Other assays of male behaviors in response to pheromone stimulus have been conducted, including a wing fanning assay in glassware (Bartell & Shorey 1969). We have previously assessed several methods for their suitability at detecting the effects of irradiation on male moth competitiveness (Suckling et al. 2011; Stringer et al. 2013). The close correlation between proclivity of an individual for activation and wing fanning and then arrival after a sustained zig-zag flight (Suckling et al. 2011) led us to hypothesize that direct assessment of wing fanning after pheromone stimulus might be a suitable measure of insect quality.
We tested the suitability of a commercially available locomotor activity meter (LAM), originally designed for vinegar flies. This project followed earlier use of locomotor activity meters for assessing Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) quality and competitiveness after irradiation (Dominiak et al. 2014). Here, we sought to understand whether impacts of irradiation on laboratory-reared male LBAM could be detected using observations of behavior obtained during pheromone stimulus. The focus was on upwind walking and wing fanning, because these behaviors were correlated with arrival and they effectively showed a dose response with irradiation (Suckling et al. 2011). We also tested whether heat shocks of various durations would have an effect on the quality of male moths in conjunction with irradiation.
Materials and Methods
Male LBAM pupae were obtained from Plant & Food Research in Auckland, reared on a modified Singh diet (Singh 1983) at 18 [degrees]C, 60% RH, and a photoperiod of 16:8 h L:D. After the pupae were exposed to the treatments, a 10% sucrose solution was provided for newly emerged adults to feed on. Only adult males aged [greater than or equal to] 24 h were used in the experiments. Colonies of adult moths were relocated to the room where the experiments took place and were kept at 18 [+ or -] 1 [degrees]C with reverse phase (16:8 h L:D) lighting until needed.
Samples of (E)-11-tetradecenyl acetate (E11-14Ac, 99.7% purity), (E,E)-9,11-tetradecadienyl acetate (E9E11-14Ac, > 99% purity), (E)11-tetradecen- 1-ol (E11-14OH, > 99% purity), and (E)-11-hexadecenyl acetate (E11-16Ac, > 99% purity) were purchased from Plant Research International, Wageningen, The Netherlands and prepared at a 95:5:1:0.5 ratio (El-Sayed et al. 2011) in hexane at 100 |g loading on rubber septa (Thomas Scientific Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA).
Pupae were placed on tissue paper and were irradiated in Petri dishes (Soopaya et al. 2011). Irradiations were conducted at the Institute for Environmental Science and Research in Christchurch using an external beam [Cobalt.sup.60] Theratron unit (Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.), which is a single radiation source that irradiates from above the target. Dose rate was 0.31 Gy/min, 55 cm from the source. A 3 mm thick layer of Perspex[R] was placed on top of the Petri dishes during irradiation to ensure electronic equilibrium, and full dose deposition at the top surface of the pupae. To ensure that the dose was uniform across the pupae, the dishes were inverted when half the required dose had been administered, and were irradiated inverted for the second half of the irradiation. Given the relatively large source-sample distance, and the sample flipping precautions, it was estimated that the maximum variability in the dose to any point in the sample was no more than [+ or -] 1% with a 95% level of confidence. There were 2 treatments: 0 Gy (non-treated) and 300 Gy. Each run consisted of 16 replicates of each treatment in randomly assigned positions. Twenty runs were performed for a total of 320 replicates to determine if there was a detectable difference between the irradiated and non-irradiated LBAM male activity after exposure to the sex pheromone blend.
Half of the pupae were irradiated as described above while the other half were left non-irradiated. Both irradiated and non-irradiated pupae were then exposed to 1 of 4 levels of heat shock within 12 h of the irradiation treatment. The heat shock exposure of pupae was 0, 1, 2 or 4 h at 30 [degrees]C in a controlled atmosphere chamber. There were 8 treatments in total (2 x 4 factorial). Each run consisted of 4 replicates of each treatment randomly placed in a commercially-available electronic actinography LAM, with 32 glass cylinders and recording channels (LAM10, Trikinetics, USA; Fig. 1). Sixteen runs were performed to give a total of 64 replicates of each treatment. This set of treatment combinations was performed to simulate accidental heat exposure during travel to emergence and release sites of an SIT program, and to determine if temperature and radiation exposure may interact, affecting the response of males to the female-produced sex pheromone.
LOCOMOTOR ACTIVITY METER
The LAM was slightly modified by removing the back plate so that air could flow freely through each tube. The LAM was housed in a ventilated box (H x W x D: 34 cm, 46 cm, 25 cm; flow = 1.2 m / s) to pull the pheromone through the tubes and remove it to a waste airstream. Moths from each treatment were selected at random and placed 1 per tube. Each tube (L x D: 125 mm, 25 mm) had a 25 mm aluminium mesh insert at each end, which left 75 mm of space in the tube for the moths to move around. After trialling different configurations, we positioned the tubes so that there was 25 mm between the infrared sensors and the mesh inserts on the up-wind side; otherwise it was too difficult to detect the wing fanning of the moths near the mesh. Moths were stimulated with a 'puff' of the sex pheromone for 2 s presented at the upwind end of each tube (Fig. 1), and activity was recorded with the tripping of 1 or more of the 3 infrared beams when the moth was within 1 cm of the upwind opening near the stimulus. Activity counts were made every 30 s to establish a 2 min pre- pheromone exposure baseline (4 counts), followed by 2 min period postexposure to the sex pheromone. The total before and total after counts were calculated for each replicate and these counts were used for analysis in both experiments.
Counts were analysed using a hierarchical generalized linear modelling approach (Lee et al. 2006). Treatments (radiation, temperature shock exposure time, before/after pheromone and the interactions between these; and also factors to make selected contrasts) were included as fixed effects with a Poisson distribution, and random effects (effects that increase variability, such as runs, and moths within runs) were included with a gamma distribution, with logarithmic links for both types of effect. The importance of a random effect was assessed with a [chi square] test of the change in deviance on dropping the term, as implemented in GenStat's HGRTEST procedure (GenStat Committee 2013a), and fixed effects similarly, using GenStat's HGFTEST procedure. For both experiments, the random factors between runs and between moths within runs for the same treatment were both found to be important, and thus were included in the final analysis, to adjust results for them.
Estimated mean counts and associated 95% confidence limits for before and after activity levels, and for the ratio between them were obtained on the transformed (log) scale, and back-transformed for presentation. Analyses were carried out with GenStat (GenStat Committee 2013b).
Between 40 and 60% of moths for each treatment showed no activity either before or after pheromone stimulation (Table 1) with about 36% of moths over both treatments showing no activity in either period. However, there was no evidence that a lack of activity was associated with the radiation treatment, since the percentage of inactive moths was similar for irradiated and un-irradiated moths. The raw activity data shows that moth activity increased after moths were exposed to the sex pheromone (Fig. 2).
Table 2 and Fig. 2 summarize activity levels for irradiated and unirradiated moths. Prior to pheromone stimulation, activity levels were similar for both treated and untreated moths, at about 2.7 activity counts. Activity levels for both rose after stimulation, but the increase was noticeably greater for the un-irradiated moths: There was a significant interaction between radiation and after: before ([chi square] = 12.76; df = 1; P < 0.001), indicating that the after: before pheromone ratio was modified in irradiated moths in comparison to un-irradiated moths. The after: before activity ratio was about 40% greater for un-irradiated moths compared to irradiated moths.
Around half of moths showed no activity before or after pheromone exposure (Table 3). A third of moths showed no activity at all (both zero); these inactivity levels were therefore quite similar for the 2 experiments. Table 4 and Fig. 4 summarize the activity measured for experiment 2. Changes in activity with respect to increasing temperature shock exposure varied both between before and after pheromone exposure, and between irradiated and un-irradiated moths ([chi square] = 11.52; df = 3; P = 0.009 for the time by radiation by before/after interaction). Thus, the after:before activity ratio temperature exposure response varied between irradiated an unirradiated moths. The change in activity with increasing exposure was inconsistent, and activity did not vary significantly with temperature shock duration for either treatment, either before or after stimulation ([chi square] = 4.50, 1.71, 1.70, 1.36; df = 3; P = 0.212, 0.635, 0.637, 0.715 for the temperature effect, for before, without / with radiation, and after without / with radiation respectively).
The after:before ratio also did not vary significantly with temperature for irradiated ([chi square]= 6.729; df = 3; P = 0.081) or un-irradiated ([chi square] = 1.993; df = 3; P = 0.574) moths, but the response pattern did vary noticeably. For 0 and 1 h shock, the ratio was fairly similar for irradiated and un-irradiated moths, but it increased between 1 and 2 h exposure for un-irradiated moths, but decreased for irradiated moths (thus, the significant 3-way interaction).
When undertaking an area-wide program that includes the release of sterile males, it is important to determine the competitiveness of the insects being released in order to have the highest chance at success (Simmons et al. 2010; Kean et al. 2011). There are many quality assays that measure the physical capabilities of the released insect, such as the ability to fly in a wind tunnel or be recaptured after release (Suckling et al. 2011; Stringer et al. 2013). But possibly the most important quality to measure is the mass-reared insects drive and ability to mate (Simmons et al. 2010; Kean et al. 2011). By slightly modifying a commercially available locomotion activity monitor so that air could flow through the tubes, we were able to test the response of laboratory-reared LBAM males to the 4-component sex pheromone. We were able to see change in the pattern of activity, i.e., from low activity at the base level to higher activity in the post pheromone phase, finally settling down to near base levels after ~6 min (Fig. 2), which is similar to the recovery rates found by Bartell (1985). For this experiment we used 30 s reading intervals, but the interval can be adjusted down to every 1 s or up to 60 min, depending on how fine or coarse a resolution is needed in the behavior of the insects.
Mating competitiveness is significantly reduced by irradiation in Lepidoptera, and adverse effects have been shown on males of C. pomonella (Carpenter et al. 2012; Carpenter et al. 2013) and both male and female LBAM (Suckling et al. 2011; Stringer et al. 2013). Wind tunnel assessment of changes in moth flight ability after irradiation has been done on species in 2 families of Lepidoptera (Suckling et al. 2005; Suckling et al. 2007a). The wind tunnel system, which has been widely used in pheromone research (Baker & Vickers 1997), looks promising for measuring insect quality in irradiated Lepidoptera, but is not suitable for routine use. A need has also been expressed for a more automated system suitable for factory scale use. An automated system of testing single moths in behavioral assays would be desirable to advance automation of moth quality assessment. While simple and affordable bioassays have been developed to assess the quality of sterilized insects (Carpenter et al. 2012), the bioassay presented here using the LAM system demonstrates that 32 individual insects can be assessed (or many more as more modules are added) in a matter of min for each run.
The locomotion activity meter indicated that a significant reduction of around 23% occurred in activation response to pheromone (Table 2) for insects irradiated at 300 Gy compared with untreated controls. The estimate of a reduction to 77% of control values is similar to recapture rates with male LBAM irradiated at 300 Gy and released in hedgerows (75% of control values) and vineyards (78% of control values) (Suckling et al. 2011).
Abiotic stressors, such as changes in temperature, are known to have a deleterious effect on various life stages of insects. This is of particular interest when insects are reared and released for SIT programs. Unfortunately, temperature changes can happen when insects are transported from the rearing site to the release site. Even a short duration temperature shock has been known to affect the quality of sterile insects (Dominiak et al. 2007; Dominiak et al. 2014). Carpenter et al. (2012) found that irradiated codling moths were more likely to be of lower quality than non-irradiated after handling during transport. Gutierrez et al. (2010) demonstrated that the lower and upper threshold for all LBAM development stages was between 6.8 and 31.3 [degrees]C. In the same study, Gutierrez et al. (2010) refined the calculated optimum temperature of 19.15 [degrees]C by re-analyzing data from Danthanarayana's earlier study (Danthanarayana 1975). By using the upper limit of 30 [degrees]C, we stayed within the upper/lower temperature range of LBAM during our temperature shock experiment. While the various temperature shock durations did not appear to lower the competitiveness of the non-irradiated males, there was a slight negative effect on the irradiated males at the 2 and 4 h durations. This suggests limited tolerance for higher temperatures in this laboratory strain, which had been cultured for 134 generations.
Recent developments support the use of locomotion activity meters for assessing quality in irradiated fruit flies (Dominiak et al. 2014). Even before the pheromone was identified, LBAM were observed and characterized for response to sex pheromone (extracted from female moths), with multiple individuals caged in a rotating glass device to ensure clean air and a low background of activity (Bartell & Lawrence 1976). Modern variations to this could include motion recording using machine vision techniques after pheromone stimulation, but after initial experiments and after considering the advantages demonstrated in Dominiak et al. (2014), we pursued the use of the LAM. Pre-courtship behavior in LBAM involves male wing fanning and movement towards the female, which the assay described in the present study captures. Stimulation with pheromone and analysis of the response offers a number of benefits, because this behavior is correlated with flight and probability of mating, but can be measured far more easily.
The LAM was successful at measuring activity following pheromone stimulation including increased walking and wing fanning. It has potential for wider use in measuring insect quality and could prove to be amenable to automation. The commercially-available LAM would appear to have significant advantages including cost and ready availability along with a relatively fast turnover of replicates. This system could help with the assessment of sterile insects so that programs can better model/predict the effect of each release.
This work was part of the FAO/IAEA Coordinated Research Project on Increasing the Efficiency of Lepidoptera SIT by Enhanced Quality Control, and was supported by the IAEA technical contract 15202, Better Border Biosecurity (http://www.b3nz.org/) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Plant Biosecurity. Thanks to Phil Taylor of Macquarie University for the suggestion to investigate equipment from Trikinetics Inc. and to Tony Corbett (PFR) for the illustration.
Baker TC, Vickers NJ. 1997. Pheromone-mediated flight in moths, pp. 248-264 In Carde RT, Minks AK [eds.], Insect Pheromone Research: New Directions. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Bartell R, Shorey H. 1969. A quantitative bioassay for the sex pheromone of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera) and factors limiting male responsiveness. Journal of Insect Physiology 15(1): 33-40.
Bartell RJ. 1985. Pheromone-mediated behaviour of male lightbrown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana, correlated with adaptation of pheromone receptors. Physiological Entomology 10(2): 121-126.
Bartell RJ, Lawrence LA. 1976. Reduction in sexual responsiveness of male light- brown apple moth following previous brief pheromonal exposure is concentration dependent. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society 15: 236.
Bloem K, Bloem S, Carpenter J, Hight S, Floyd J, Zimmermann H. 2007. Don't let cacto blast us: Development of a bi-national plan to stop the spread of the cactus moth Cactoblastis cactorum in North America, pp. 337-344 In Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J [eds.], Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests. From Research to Field Implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Bloem KA, Bloem S, Carpenter JE. 2005. Impact of moth suppression/eradication programmes using the sterile insect technique or inherited sterility, pp. 677-700 In Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS [eds.], Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Bloem S, Carpenter JE, Dorn S. 2006. Mobility of mass-reared diapaused and nondiapaused Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): Effect of mating status and treatment with gamma radiation. Journal of Economic Entomology 99: 699-706.
Caceres C, McInnis D, Shelly T, Jang E, Robinson A, Hendrichs J. 2007. Quality management systems for fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) sterile insect technique. Florida Entomologist 90(1): 1-9.
Carpenter JE. Area-wide integration of lepidopteran Ft sterility and augmentative biological control, pp. 193-200 In Tan KH [ed.], Area-Wide Control of Fruit Flies and Other Insect Pests. International Conference on Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests, and the 5th International Symposium on Fruit Flies of Economic Importance, 28 May-5 June 1998, Penang, Malaysia. Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia.
Carpenter JE, Bloem S, Hofmeyer JH. 2007. Area-wide control tactics for the false codling moth Thaumatotibia leucotreta in South Africa: a potential invasive species, pp. 351-359 In Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J [eds.], Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests. From Research to Field Implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Carpenter JE, Bloem S, Marec F. 2005. Inherited sterility in insects, pp. 115- 146 In Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS [eds.], Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Carpenter JE, Blomefield T, Hight SD. 2013. Comparison of laboratory and field bioassays of laboratory-reared Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) quality and field performance. Journal of Applied Entomology 137(8): 631-640.
Carpenter JE, Blomefield T, Vreysen MJB. 2012. A flight cylinder bioassay as a simple, effective quality control test for Cydia pomonella. Journal of Applied Entomology 136(9): 711-720.
Danthanarayana W. 1975. The bionomics, distribution and host range of the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Walk.) (Tortricidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 23(3): 419-437.
Dominiak BC, Campbell AJ, Barchia IM. 2007. Changes in emergence parameters as a result of transporting sterile Queensland fruit fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) pupae. General and Applied Entomology 36: 7-10.
Dominiak BC, Fanson BG, Collins SR, Taylor PW. 2014. Automated locomotor activity monitoring as a quality control assay for mass-reared tephritid flies. Pest Management Science 70(2): 304-309.
El-Sayed AM, Mitchell VJ, Manning LA, Suckling DM. 2011. New sex pheromone blend for the light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana. Journal of Chemical Ecology 37(6): 640-646.
Genstat Committee 2013a. GenStat Reference Manual Release 15 - Part 3, Procedures. VSN International, Oxford.
Genstat Committee 2013b. The Guide to GenStat (Release 16). VSN International, Oxford.
Gutierrez AP, Mills NJ, Ponti L. 2010. Limits to the potential distribution of light brown apple moth in Arizona-California based on climate suitability and host plant availability. Biological Invasions 12(9): 3319-3331.
Jang EB, McInnis DO, Kurashima R, Woods B, Suckling DM. 2012. Irradiation of adult light brown apple moth, Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): egg sterility in parental and F1 generations. Journal of Economic Entomology 105: 54-61.
Kean JM, Stephens AEA, Wee SL, Suckling DM. 2007. Optimizing strategies for eradication of discrete-generation lepidopteran pests using inherited sterility, pp. 211-220 In Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J [eds.], Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests. From Research to Field Implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Kean JM, Suckling DM, Stringer LD, Woods B. 2011. Modeling the sterile insect technique for suppression of light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 104(5): 1462-1475.
Klassen W, Curtis CF. 2005. History of the sterile insect technique, pp. 3-36 In Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS [eds.], Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Lee Y, Nelder JA, Pawitan Y. 2006. Generalized Linear Models with Random Effects: Unified Analysis via H-likelihood. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, London.
Simmons G, Suckling D, Carpenter J, Addison M, Dyck V, Vreysen M. 2010. Improved quality management to enhance the efficacy of the sterile insect technique for lepidopteran pests. Journal of Applied Entomology 134(3): 261-273.
Singh P. 1983. A general-purpose laboratory diet mixture for rearing insects. Insect Science and its Application 4(4): 357-362.
Soopaya R, Stringer LD, Woods B, Stephens AE, Butler RC, Lacey I, Kaur A, Suckling DM. 2011. Radiation biology and inherited sterility of light brown apple moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae): developing a sterile insect release program. Journal of Economic Entomology 104(6): 1999-2008.
Stephens AEA, Barrington AM, Fletcher NM, Suckling DM. 2006. Irradiation conditions affect the quality of irradiated painted apple moth. New Zealand Plant Protection 59: 119-124.
Stringer LD, Sullivan NJ, Sullivan TES, Mitchell VJ, Manning LAM, Mas F, Hood- Nowotny RC, Suckling DM. 2013. Attractiveness and competitiveness of irradiated light brown apple moths. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 148(3): 203-212.
Suckling D, Pedley R, Wee SL. 2004. Pupal age affects efficacy of irradiation on painted apple moth Teiaanartoides. New Zealand Plant Protection 57: 166-170.
Suckling DM, Barrington AM, Chhagan A, Stephens AEA, Burnip GM, Charles JG, Wee SL. 2007a. Eradication of the Australian painted apple moth Teia anartoides in New Zealand: trapping, inherited sterility, and male competitiveness, pp. 603-615 In Vreysen MJB, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J [eds.], Area-Wide Control of Insect Pests. From Research to Field Implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Suckling DM, Brockerhoff EG. 2010. Invasion biology, ecology, and management of the light brown apple moth (Tortricidae). Annual Review of Entomology 55: 285-306.
Suckling DM, Charles J, Allan D, Chaggan A, Barrington A, Burnip GM, El-Sayed AM. 2005. Performance of irradiated Teia anartoides (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) in urban Auckland, New Zealand. Journal of Economic Entomology 98(5): 1531-1538.
Suckling DM, Stringer LD, Mitchell VJ, Sullivan TE, Simmons GS, Barrington AM, El-Sayed AM. 2011. Comparative fitness of irradiated light brown apple moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a wind tunnel, hedgerow and vineyard. Journal of Economic Entomology 104(4): 1301-1308.
Vreysen MJB. 2005. Monitoring sterile and wild insects in area-wide integrated pest management programmes, pp. 325-361 In Dyck VA, Hendrichs J, Robinson AS [eds.], Sterile Insect Technique. Principles and Practice in Area-Wide Integrated Pest Management. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Vreysen MJB, Balenghien T, Saleh KM, Maiga S, Koudougou Z, Cecchi G, Bouyer J. 2013. Release-recapture studies confirm dispersal of Glossina palpalis gambiensis between river basins in Mali. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 7(4): e2022.
Robert L. Brown (1), Mailee Stanbury (1), Ashraf M. El-Sayed (1,2,3), John Laban (4), Ruth Butler (1) and David M. Suckling (1,2,3), *
(1) The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, PB 4704, Christchurch, New Zealand
(2) Better Border Biosecurity, New Zealand
(3) Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra, Australia
(4) The Institute for Environmental Science and Research Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand
* Corresponding author; E-mail: Max.Suckling@plantandfood.co.nz
Caption: Fig. 1. An illustration of the modified Locomotion Activity Monitor set-up used for the bioassays in this study. Synthetic pheromone was puffed (2 s) from upwind to stimulate LBAM males into wing fanning. Each time a male moved through the beam array it was counted as 1 observation. Comparisons were made between pre-pheromone exposure activity and post-pheromone exposure activity for each treatment.
Caption: Fig. 2. Measured activity of male Epiphyaspostvittana as summed counts at 30 s intervals in a locomotor activity monitor, before and after pheromone stimulus of irradiated and non-irradiated moths.
Caption: Fig. 3. Mean activity counts for before and after pheromone exposure (left), and the mean after/before activity ratio (right), for un-irradiated (0 Gy = -) and irradiated (300 Gy = +) Epiphyas postvittana males. Error bars are 95% confidence limits for each mean. An after/before ratio of 1 (marked) indicates an equal level of activity before and after pheromone exposure.
Caption: Fig. 4. Mean activity counts for before and after pheromone exposure (left), and the mean after/before activity ratio (right), un-irradiated (0 Gy) and irradiated (300 Gy) Epiphyas postvittana males exposed to 1 of 4 levels of temperature shock (0, 1, 2, 4 h at 30 [degrees]C). Error bars are 95% confidence limits for each mean. An after/before ratio of 1 (marked) indicates an equal level of activity before and after pheromone exposure.
Table 1. Number of Epiphyas postvittana males with zero activity count before, after and both before and after pheromone exposure in the locomotor activity monitor. The number of moths used for each radiation treatment was 320. Pheromone exposure Radiation dose Before After No. with 0 activity both before and after pheromone exposure 0 Gy 190 137 112 300 Gy 172 154 117 Table 2. Mean activity counts for un-irradiated (0 Gy) and irradiated (300 Gy) Epiphyas postvittana males before and after pheromone exposure, and the mean after/before activity ratio (95% confidence limits). n = 320. Pheromone exposure Radiation Before After Activity ratio: dose After/Before 0 Gy 2.6 (1.9, 3.6) 6.3 (4.7, 8.5) 2.4 (2.0, 2.9) 300 Gy 2.8 (2.0, 3.8) 4.9 (3.6, 6.7) 1.8 (1.5, 2.1) Table 3. Numbers of Epiphyas postvittana males with zero activity count before, after and both before and after pheromone exposure. Treatments were radiation (0 Gy or 300 Gy) plus temperature shock (0, 1, 2, 4 h at 30[degrees]C). The number of moths used for each treatment was 64. Pheromone exposure Radiation Temperature Before After No. with 0 activity dose shock (h) both before and after pheromone exposure 0 Gy 0 34 30 23 1 28 29 19 2 37 30 24 4 39 25 24 300 Gy 0 41 31 28 1 36 31 26 2 29 34 24 4 29 31 21 Table 4. Mean activity counts before and after pheromone exposure, and the mean after/before activity ratio, for un-irradiated (0 Gy) and irradiated (300 Gy) Epiphyas postvittana males exposed to 1 of 4 levels of temperature shock (0, 1, 2, 4 h at 30[degrees]C) (95% confidence limits). Pheromone exposure Radiation Temperature Before After dose shock(h) 4.4 (2.8, 6.8) 5.6 (3.7, 8.4) 1 3.1 (2.0, 5.0) 4.1 (2.6, 6.4) 2 3.2 (2.0, 5.1) 5.7 (3.8, 8.6) 4 2.9 (1.8, 4.6) 5.0 (3.3, 7.6) 300 Gy 0 3.4 (2.1, 5.3) 4.4 (2.9, 6.8) 1 3.2 (2.0, 5.1) 5.2 (3.4, 7.9) 2 4.5 (2.9, 6.9) 4.1 (2.7, 6.4) 4 3.8 (2.5, 6.0) 4.1 (2.7, 6.4) Radiation Temperature No. with 0 activity dose shock(h) both before and after pheromone exposure 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) 1 1.3 (0.8, 2.0) 2 1.8 (1.2, 2.7) 4 1.7 (1.2, 2.6) 300 Gy 0 1.3 (0.9, 2.0) 1 1.6 (1.1, 2.4) 2 0.9 (0.6, 1.4) 4 1.1 (0.7, 1.6)
Please note: Some tables or figures were omitted from this article.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||Tools and Methods to Assess Field Performance|
|Author:||Brown, Robert L.; Stanbury, Mailee; Sayed, Ashraf M. El-; Laban, John; Butler, Ruth; Suckling, David|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||Flight activity and mating behavior of irradiated Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) males and their [F.sub.1] progeny for use of inherited...|
|Next Article:||Developing field cage tests to measure mating competitiveness of sterile light brown apple moths (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Western Australia.|