Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27492468›Full record

ReviewJournal of chemical ecology2016

Mating Disruption as a Suppression Tactic in Programs Targeting Regulated Lepidopteran Pests in US.

David R Lance, Donna S Leonard, Victor C Mastro, Michelle L Walters

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of chemical ecology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. EvaluatingInsects · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Mating Disruption ofInsects · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Control ofPeerJ · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Managing the vine mealybug, Planococcus ficus, through pheromone-mediated mating disruption.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Disrupting mating of Lobesia botrana using sex pheromone aerosol devices.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Article
  17. Eco-friendly pheromone dispensers-a green route to manage the European grapevine moth?Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David R LanceUSDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory, 1398 W Truck Rd, Buzzards Bay, MA, 02542, USA. david.r.lance@aphis.usda.gov.
Donna S LeonardUSDA Forest Service, Southern Region, Forest Health Protection, 200 WT Weaver Blvd, Asheville, NC, 28804, USA.
Victor C MastroUSDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Otis Laboratory, 1398 W Truck Rd, Buzzards Bay, MA, 02542, USA.
Michelle L WaltersUSDA APHIS PPQ, CPHST Phoenix Laboratory, 3645 E. Wier Ave, Phoenix, AZ, 85040, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mating disruption, the broadcast application of sex-attractant pheromone to reduce the ability of insects to locate mates, has proven to be an effective method for suppressing populations of numerous moth pests. Since the conception of mating disruption, the species-specificity and low toxicity of pheromone applications has led to their consideration for use in area-wide programs to manage invasive moths. Case histories are presented for four such programs where the tactic was used in the United States: Pectinophora gossypiella (pink bollworm), Lymantria dispar (gypsy moth), Epiphyas postvittana (light brown apple moth), and Lobesia botrana (European grapevine moth). Use of mating disruption against P. gossypiella and L. botrana was restricted primarily to agricultural areas and relied in part (P. gossypiella) or wholly (L. botrana) on hand-applied dispensers. In those programs, mating disruption was integrated with other suppression tactics and considered an important component of overall efforts that are leading toward eradication of the invasive pests from North America. By contrast, L. dispar and E. postvittana are polyphagous pests, where pheromone formulations have been applied aerially as stand-alone treatments across broad areas, including residential neighborhoods. For L. dispar, mating disruption has been a key component in the program to slow the spread of the infestation of this pest, and the applications generally have been well tolerated by the public. For E. postvittana, public outcry halted the use of aerially applied mating disruption after an initial series of treatments, effectively thwarting an attempt to eradicate this pest from California. Reasons for the discrepancies between these two programs are not entirely clear.

Indexed as

AnimalsInsect ControlMothsSex AttractantsSexual Behavior, AnimalSex AttractantsAerial applicationContainmentDisparlureEradicationEuropean grapevine mothGypsy mothInvasive pestsLight brown apple mothPink bollwormSlow the spread

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.