Addressing the Diamondback Moth

Endemic: Genetics as the Answer

605 Broadway Submitted by:
Tyshia Rennick
Submitted to:
Susan K. Syversen
Advisory Committee
The Towards Sustainability Foundation
Saugus, MA 01906
Date: 9 December, 2015

Scientific and Technical Writing

Professor Manjapra Srinivasan

Abstract
The diamondback moth is an invertebrate originally native to parts of East Asia, Europe and
Southern Africa. Increased travel and trade brought it to the Americas in the early 1900s. It is a
generalist species whose diet mostly consists of cauliflower, cabbage and broccoli, all of which
are a part of the global economy. In addition, its wide ecological range and high adaptability
make it a very successful and persistent pest, making it a costly pest to manage. The introduction
of highly resistant DBM populations in New York has been found to be the result of cabbage
transplants imported from southern states and recently there have been many modern practices
that have been employed in the management of this pest. These practices include the use of
insecticides, trap crops, the pests natural killers, and the use of transgenic crops.
This project proposal calls for a new management method that involves an alternative
management practice. This technique involves the genetic modification of the pest and has been
proven to lead to significant declines in wild DBM populations. The plan is to conduct a two-yea
application experiment that will aid as a pilot program that will determine the real-world
effectiveness of this method.

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Figures............................................................................................................................ iii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
DBM Ecology ...................................................................................................................... 1
Economic Costs ................................................................................................................... 3
Need for Management ......................................................................................................... 3
Literature Review ......................................................................................................................... 4
Infestation and Pest Resistance in New York Cabbage ...................................................... 4
Current Management Practices .......................................................................................... 5
An Alternative Approach..................................................................................................... 6
Plan ................................................................................................................................................. 7
Application Experiment ...................................................................................................... 7
Budget ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Justification ......................................................................................................................... 9
Discussion....................................................................................................................................... 9
References .................................................................................................................................... 11

ii

Table of Figures
Figure 1. (Top) Diamondback moth adult and (Bottom) Diamondback moth larvae.................... 1
Figure 2. Cabbage damaged by diamondback moth. ..................................................................... 2
Figure 3. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth (DBM) based on a validated
bioclimatic model (187). ................................................................................................ 4
Figure 4. Adaptive Management Key Processes...................................................................................8
Figure 5. Total Cost of Two-Year Application Experiment...........................................................8

iii

Introduction
Invasive species have been shattering ecosystems and making headlines for hundreds of years.
From the emerald ash borer destroying trees in the Eastern United States, to the explosion of the
European rabbit population in Australia, invasive species have showcased their miraculous talent
of ecosystem domination. This is exactly the case with the diamondback moth (DBM), otherwise
known as Plutella xylostella. Like most invasive species, DBM was introduced to the United
States of increased travel and trade. Introduction happened in the early 1900s but it was not until
the 1940s when chemical pesticide became prevalent that DBM became a major issue (Powell,
2015). DDT, an organochloride known for its insecticidal properties, was used to control pests,
however, this moth was the first insect to evolve resistance to it. Our pest control tactics have
also evolved since then, but the diamondback moth has held the title for one of the most
destructive pests due to its overwhelming resistance to insecticides and pesticides.

DBM Ecology
The diamondback moth is an invertebrate whose origin is believed to be in East Asia, Europe or
South Africa, but whose range is now worldwide. The figure below shows the two main life
stages of the insect; the adult phase (top) and the larval phase (bottom). Adults are long and
slender, and grow to be about 9mm long. Adults are identifiable by their greyish-brown color
and the lighter diamond-shaped areas formed by the forewings on its back. This is how Plutella
xylostella got the common name diamondback moth. The larval phase on the other hand, looks
much different. They grow to be slightly larger than adults, and when fully grown are green and
have thin black hairs that protrude from small white patches that are found along the body
(Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth), 2014).
Figure 1. (Top) Diamondback moth adult and (Bottom)
Diamondback moth larvae.

Source: Clark, J. K. (Photograph). (2013). Diamondback moth [digital image]. Retrieved

from http://www.plantandfood.co.nz/growingfutures/case-studies/controlling-vegetablepest/diamondback-moth
1

DBM is known for its relationship with cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli, cauliflower and
cabbages. These specific plants are characterized by the presence of glucosinolates, otherwise
known as sulfur-containing plant compounds, and are the primary host for DBM. Glucosinolates
are generally toxic to most insects, but DBM prefer and rely on them for food and reproductive
success. In the typical life cycle of DBM, adults copulate, and as a result, an average of 150
300 eggs is laid by the female. The incubation period of the eggs is largely dependent on
temperature, but after an average length of about 6 days, they hatch. The larva then feed and
grow and persist for about 2 to 3 weeks until they encase themselves in silk cocoons. This marks
the beginning of the pupa phase which lasts a week or so until they emerge as adults. Generally,
there is a great deal of variation in the duration of the DBM life-cycle. The determining factor in
the length of the moths life-cycle is temperature (Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth),
2014).
The main key to their success is their wide ecological range because it allows them to be able to
reproduce under extensively varied temperature and climatic circumstances. The life cycle can
take about 3 weeks in warm conditions, but increase to 6 in more temperate climates. It is this
fact about them that allows them to persist on such a wide range. They thrive in warm climates,
but generally cannot survive colder ones. But, their ability to survive in warms regions allows
adults to migrate to other regions once colder temperatures subside (Plutella xylostella
(diamondback moth), 2014).
I mentioned earlier that DBM rely on vegetables like cabbage, cauliflower and broccoli for food.
Combine that with their overall success in a variety of climatic areas, and a potential problem
arises. These vegetables exist naturally, but are also found in agricultural areas in great capacity
because humans also depend on them for food. Crops that are ravaged by DBM populations are
left looking much like the cabbage in the image below (Figure 2). This produce is found to be
unappealing to consumers which makes them unusable for producers. DBMs persistence and
adaptability make it one of the worlds most studied insect pests, but it is also why it remains one
of the most difficult pests to manage (Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth), 2014).
Figure 2. Cabbage damaged by diamondback moth.

Source: Varela, A. M. (Photograph). (2012, April 28). Cabbage damaged by diamondback

moth [digital image]. Retrieved from
http://rachel.worldpossible.org/modules/infonet/export/default$ct$90$pests.html
2

Economic Costs
Earlier, I touched briefly on the United States reaction to DBM. Once this pests presence
became known, and farmers and growers began trying to control their presence and population
density, they quickly realized that managing the moth would not be easy. Farmers and
agriculturalists alike have found solace in chemical pesticide treatment. Chemical pesticide
treatment of infested crops is the most widely used management methods in the United States;
this is due to the fact that it is the cheapest and easiest method to practice (Powell, 2015). A
study conducted by Zalucki et al. (2012) used this knowledge to estimate the annual cost of
DBM. For crops like cabbages, if a single weekly insecticide treatment is assumed, the cost of
management is approximately somewhere between $1.3 billion and 2.34 billion. This number is
not even including the DBM-induced yield loss of crops that add up to another $2.7 billion
dollars. Combining these values, it is estimated that DBM costs the United States somewhere
between $4 billion-$5 billion each year (Zalucki et al., 2012, p.1115). In just three years,
management and yield losses due to this pest can add up to a total of almost $15 billion
worldwide.
When specifically addressing New York, a study by Shelton (2001a) noted that approximately
ca. 30,000 acres of farmland is used for the production of cabbage. Depending on the season,
most farmers will treat their crop 2-3 times a season. With pesticide treatment being on average
$32 per acre, this would cost $960,000 for pesticide treatments alone (Crop Costs on Illinois
Grain Farms, 2004). He also noted though, that if no treatment is applied, most of not all of the
$80 million worth of cabbage crop would be unmarketable. This issue, if left poorly managed,
will continue to affect local and worldwide economies.

Need for Management

As mentioned before, the United States is not the only place to be affected by DBM. The severity
can be exemplified by the economic losses Kenya experienced due to DBM. These costs do not
directly compare to the costs estimated by the United States, but this is proportionally as
significant when considering their economy. Their study found that with proper management
techniques, they could estimate a 30% abatement of yield losses and an estimated economic
surplus of $28.3 million dollars for 25 years, with 58% of the benefit going to the consumer, and
the other 42% to producers (Macharia, Lohr & Groote, 2005). This is a perfect model as to the
advantages of implementing new and more advanced pest management techniques.
Not only will management of the pest help producers and consumers, but it will generally aid
any economy that relies on the production of cruciferous plants. In addition, when considering
the survivability of the pest and its ability to migrate, proper management will prevent further
spread of this pest. By utilizing knowledge of DBM bioclimatic preferences, scientists have been
able to forecast its main distribution, where it has the potential to persist year round, as well as
areas where is can only persist seasonally (Figure 3). The models shows areas that are shaded
either red or blue. The red areas show the range of the Ecoclimatic Index (EI). This index
measures the suitability of the environment for DBM year-round survival; this is the core
distribution of the pest. The areas that are shaded blue show parts of the world where the EI is
zero, but where the growth index (GI) of the pest is positive. These regions are areas where the
3

DBM is incapable of persisting year-round, but are areas where their populations can seasonally
persist. As you can see, the pest has the potential be a major worldwide issue, which is why
DBM management is so important.
Figure 3. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth (DBM)
based on a validated bioclimatic model (187).

Figure 4. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth (DBM)

based on a validated bioclimatic model (187).

Figure 5. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth (DBM)

based on a validated bioclimatic model (187).

Figure 6. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth (DBM)

based on a validated bioclimatic model (187).

Figure 7. Predicted
worldwide
distribution
of Dosdall,
diamondback
Source:
Furlong,
Wright &
2013 moth (DBM)
based on a validated bioclimatic model (187).

Literature Review
Figure 8. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth (DBM)

Infestation and Pest

inbioclimatic
New York
Cabbage
basedResistance
on a validated
model
(187).

Earlier, I explained that the moth was believed to have originated from Southern Africa, Europe
or East Asia and that its introduction to the United States was the result of increased
Figure 9.travel
Predicted
worldwide
distribution
of that
diamondback
moth the
(DBM)
intercontinental
and trade
. It was during
this time
issues managing
pest arose. New
based
on DBM
a validated
bioclimatic
model
(187).
York is one of the places
where
has shown
high levels
of insecticide
resistance, but this is
odd due to the short growing season in this region. Scientists looked into this and believe that the
highly resistant DBM migrated into the area from other regions. Upon further investigation, they
looked intoFigure
cabbage
transplants
are cabbage
seedlings that
are grown and
10.transplants
Predicted. Cabbage
worldwide
distribution
of diamondback
moth
on aproduction
validated bioclimatic
model (187).
exported to various(DBM)
places based
for further
(Plutella xylostella
(diamondback moth), 2014).
Delving more deeply into the source of infestation in New York, it was estimated that almost
70% of cabbage grown is developed from cabbage transplants and comes from other states. With
that they theorized
thatPredicted
the presence
of highlydistribution
resistant DBM
in New York ismoth
the result of
Figure 11.
worldwide
of diamondback
transport of individuals
from
other
(Shelton,
2001b). model (187).
(DBM)
based
onstates
a validated
bioclimatic
To test this theory, scientists conducted a study. New York cabbage farms receive most of their
transplants from Maryland, Florida and Georgia. During the study, as cabbage transplant
Figure 12. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth
shipments were received, they were visually inspected for the presence of DBM. Once identified,
(DBM) based on a validated bioclimatic model (187).
the colonies were tested for susceptibility to insecticide. The study found that cabbage
transplants imported from Florida were the source of large populations of highly resistant DBM.
Figure 13. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth
(DBM) based on a validated bioclimatic model (187).

Figure 14. Predicted worldwide distribution of diamondback moth

With this knowledge, it was recommended that farmers visually inspect transplants before
planting them and subsequently reject the load if more than 5% of it is contaminated with DBM
(Shelton, 2001b).

Current Management Practices

Even with visual inspection of crops before planting, DBM populations continue to cultivate and
flourish on farms across the nation. As previously mentioned, one of the leading management
methods is the use of insecticides. The diamondback moths resistance to synthetic sprays was
discovered long ago, and according to Furlong, Wright & Dosdall (2013), DBM is one of few
pests to cultivate resistance to all major classes of insecticides. Farmers way around this is the
use of three or four types of insecticides in a typical ten to twelve-week crop cycle (Furlong,
Wright & Dosdall, 2013). Insecticide use is one of the quickest and easiest methods used to
control pest population, but the major drawback is the quick and subsequent resistance to the
pesticides used. In addition, a study by Bommarco, Miranda, Bylund & Bjrkman (2011) found
that many insecticides kill a number of DBMs natural enemies, which in turn can increase pest
prevalence. Not only can pesticides counteract their purpose, Bommarco, Miranda, Bylund &
Bjrkman (2011) also discerned that other negative effects are human health problems and
lower prices because of consumers' desire to buy organic products.
Other management methods have targeted the ecological relationship between DBM and their
host plants. One of these techniques involves the use of trap crops. Trap crops are crops that are
planted to draw pests away from a specific crop. The potential to be a trap crop is generally
evaluated by ovipositional preference and the survival of pest larvae. Ovipositional preference is
the pests preference in where it lays its eggs. As stated by Badenes-Perez, Shelton & Nault
(2004), hosts examined as trap crops were glossy and waxy collards, Indian mustard, and
yellow rocket. More eggs were laid on the potential trap crops, with the exception of waxy
collards, than on cabbage. A rather remarkable development has been the use of what are called
dead-end trap crops. These crops, based off of the yellow rocket, are favored for oviposition,
but also hold chemicals that are lethal to pest larvae (Bommarco, Miranda, Bylund & Bjrkman
2011). This management method seems to be promising. Badenes-Perez, Shelton & Nault (2004)
found, though, that this methods falls short in real-world application. Amongst a number of cases
of applied use, their study sound that there had been only been one instance of this method being
successfully employed by farmers.
More research that exploits ecological relationships is the study of DBMs natural killers.
Miranda, Bylund, Grnberg, Larsson, & Bjrkman (2011) noted that the consistently most
abundant predator groups with the highest consumption or killing rate, and consequently the
highest potential for suppressing P. xylostella populations [are] wolf spiders (Lycosidae) and
rove beetles (Staphylinidae), although sheet weaving spiders, jumping spiders, assassin bugs
(Reduviidae), and damsel bugs (Nabidae) also can be important. DBM predators with the
highest killing rates have clearly been identified, but further study into this area is necessary in
order to determine an active role of these organisms in DBM management. Especially keeping in
mind that the use of pesticides can actually be harmful to these organisms. Another thing to
consider when trying to establish their role in DBM pest management is the potential impact on

the surrounding ecosystem. The introduction of predators in an area can be cause for a decline in
many other species other than DBM.
Another lightly researched method of management is the use of transgenic crops. This method
involves the use of the Bt toxin. Bt, otherwise known as Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria that
creates proteins that are extremely toxic to insects. The toxin can be sprayed onto crops, in the
same way pesticides are, or it can be infused into the DNA of the crops. The pests eat the crops,
and are simply killed by the toxin. The use of Bt is comparable to that of pesticides because of
the relatively cheap cost of production and has been presented as a safer alternative to chemical
pesticides. Right along with pesticides though, DBM has also evolved resistance to Bt. A study
by Shelton and Wyman (n.d.) found that among a number of different DBM populations,
colonies in New York showed some of the highest levels of Bt resistance. Aside from the
development of Bt resistance, there has been research that has showed that Bt is in fact very
unsafe for human consumption. Overexposure to Bt can cause problems in the digestive system
that could lead to serious gastrointestinal issues. In extreme cases, there can be a toxic effect on
other organs, and in rare cases damage to the eyes (Group, 2013). Some applications of this
method, when tested, have proven to be just as effective as insecticides, but liability and
regulatory discrepancies have caused difficulty in the implementation of this method.

An Alternative Approach
A final and alternative method of pest management, which also involves the use of genetics, is
the genetic modification of DBM themselves. At the time of Furlong, Wright & Dosdalls (2013)
study, there were few successful genetic control techniques. One method was the mass release of
sterile DBM, which did not prove to be effective for management. Other research was done on
the development of pests that were homozygous for dominant lethal genetic constructs that could
engineer timing of death (Furlong, Wright & Dosdall, 2013). Both of these methods were lab
tested, but failed to make way as widespread management methods.
There have been significant advances in genetic technologies that have allowed for expansion in
the realm of genetic pest modification. A fairly recent technique, which is still in early
developmental stages, is the infusion of DBM with a self-destruct gene. Oxitech, a British
biotechnology company whose goal is to develop environmentally friendly pest management
practices, has developed a self-limiting gene that can potentially reduce DBM populations.
Essentially, they will create populations of individuals carrying male-selecting (MS) transgenes.
When released, female larvae survival will be dependent on regular feedings of tetracycline,
which they will not get in the wild. Male larvae will survive, but female larvae will die off before
even reaching adulthood. Experiments have shown that the introduction of MS-infused males
into wild DBM populations led to a rapid decline in population size, which eventually led to
eradication. Upon analysis of the gene and its effect on other organisms and humans, it is found
to be completely harmless (Harvey-Samuel et al., 2015).
Oxitec successfully implemented this management method with another pest species, the Aedes
aegypti mosquito. The mosquito does extremely well in urban environments and like DBM is
exceedingly resistant to insecticides. To combat this, Oxitec genetically modified mosquito eggs
with this same self-limiting gene that prevents larvae from reaching adulthood to mate. The
6

modified mosquitos that were released suppressed the invasive mosquito population by rates
exceeding 90%, which is far more that the 30% accomplished by the use of insecticides (Giles,
2015).

Plan
We must keep in mind that when it comes to managing pests, methods of practice are not one
size fit all. A management method that works on a small farm in Mexico, may not be fitting for a
much larger farm in Southern California. Although Oxitec is currently spearheading the research
of this method, we need to ensure replication of the methods to better guarantee success in realworld application here in New York State. More investigation is also needed, though, to
determine the environmental implications of this technique. We also need to be well-prepared to
make any modifications and/or improvements.

Application Experiment
In order to achieve these goals, the plan is to put together a team of experts to conduct a
controlled application experiment that will test the effectiveness of this method. This will be
done over the course of two years in upstate New York cabbage farms. On a volunteer basis, two
farms will be selected as sites for the application study. One will act as the control site where
they will continue their usual method of management, and the other will act as the experimental
site where we will use the population of reared population of genetically infused DBM. There
will be a preliminary assessment of the size of the existing DBM population size. Then
genetically modified DBM will be released into the farm. The DBM population will be
continually monitored, but there will also be specific seasonal comparisons of the population
sizes to also determine their persistence and potential migration after winter.
As far as personnel, this project requires the use of a Natural Science Manager to oversee the
work of any technicians and scientist. A single geneticist will be required to aid in the rearing of
the genetically modified DBM. An entomologist will be required to determine the effects of the
altered DBM on the surrounding ecosystem. An agricultural engineer and crop scientist will
work hand in hand to determine the best implementation methods and assess the effects on crop
development and production. Lastly, the project will require the use of two technicians to help
with any hands-on and lab processes. The plan also requires the use of lab space, which will also
be located in New York.
My plan will be executed with an Adaptive Management (AM) approach. AM is an organized
iterative decision making process that is done in the face of uncertainty. The key processes of
this procedure are displayed in the figure above (Figure 4). The first two steps, assess and
design, I have already done. I have identified and quantified a problem and have designed a
management plan to address said problem. The next step is to implement, which would come in
acceptance of this proposal. The monitoring step involves observing the immediate effects of the
plan. With this project it means monitoring DBM population levels. The evaluation and
adjustment steps then work hand in hand. The results from the monitoring step are assessed and
the practices or methods are adjusted if necessary. Essentially what it means, is as we conduct
7

our experiment, there will be continual monitoring and updating of practices and adaptation as
needed, so that by the end of the study, we have a protocol that is best fit for our situation.
Figure 4. Adaptive Management Key Processes.
Assess
Adjust

Design

Evaluate

Implement
Monitor

Budget
The following budget outlines the annual cost associated with this project.
Personnel

$346,168

Lab Rental Space

$83,580

Consumables

$10,000

Total

$439,748

As I mentioned before, currently, most growers who utilize chemical pesticide treatment as a
primary management method on their farms. This is costing them about $960,000 every year.
For my project, I plan to spend a little over half of this amount. The total cost for the two-year
long application experiment will be $879,496 and is displayed in the visual below (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Total Cost of Two-Year Application

Experiment
Consumables
2%
Lab
Rental
Space
19%

Personnel
Lab Rental Space
Personnel
79%

Consumables

We must also keep in mind that the costs outlined in this budget only cover the first to years of
the project. The plan is, that if the management method proves to be successful, it will be
adopted as a management method for a large number of farmers and growers New York. Future
cost associated will be the rearing and dispersal of the genetically modified moths, which will be
covered by farmers and growers who wish to adopt this method.

Justification
1. Geneticist Salary
According to the Gale Virtual Reference Library, annual wages for a geneticists is
$65,110. For the two-year period, the total salary would come to $130,220.
2. Natural Science Manager Salary
According to the Gale Virtual Reference Library, annual wages for a manager is
$88,668. For the two-year period, their total salary would come to $177,336.
3. Entomologist Salary
According to the Gale Virtual Reference Library, annual wages for an
entomologist is $51,200. For the two-year period, the total salary would come to
$102,400.
4. Agricultural Engineer Salary
According to the Gale Virtual Reference Library, annual wages for and
agricultural scientist is $56,520. For the two-year, the total cost will come to
$113,040.
5. Crop Scientist Salary
According to the Gale Virtual Reference Library, annual wages for a crop
scientist is $48,670. For the two-year period, the total salary would be $97,340.
6. Technicians
According to the Gale Virtual Reference Library, annual wages for an agricultural
technician is $18,000. For two technicians for 2 years, it will cost $72,000.
7. Lab Space
The lab I choose to work out of is the Harlem Biospace located in Upper
Manhattan. Renting a desk allows access to all of the labs equipment that is
necessary for the project. Each desk cost $995 per month, so for the 7-person
team, for 2 years it will cost $167,160 (Apply For Space: Harlem Biospace, n.d.).
8. Consumables
Consumables are the disposable supplies needed to run and maintain a lab. This
includes things like pipette tips, reactants, etc. This estimate is based upon an
article that outlines the annual cost of starting and maintaining a lab. The
estimated cost of consumables for a single year is $10,000. Making the total
$20,000 for the 2 years (What Does is Cost to Run a Small College Lab?, 2011).

Discussion
I hope I was able to demonstrate the need for new and advanced management techniques for the
diamondback moth. The diamondback moth, although small, has a large impact on cabbage,
broccoli and cauliflower farms around the world. Throughout their lifestyle, they feed on various
9

parts of these crops, leaving them inedible for consumers and unmarketable for farmers. Growers
and producers around the world suffer, but even more importantly, the farmers of New York
State are at a disadvantage. Many of the in-place management methods have serious drawbacks,
are underdeveloped, or lack real-world consistency. For this reason, a newer and improved
method is a necessity.
This plan requires the use of genetically modified diamondback moths that will be unable to
reproduce, which will lead to a decrease in and potential eradication of wild DBM populations.
At a glance, my proposal may seem costly. But if you compare the costs of just the first year of
the application experiment, $439,748, to the annual cost of pesticide treatment, $960,000 the
savings are apparent. Being that my project is acting as a pilot program, there will be constant
evaluation of the effectiveness, as stated in the plan. Once the experiment is completed and the
results evaluated, future costs associated with this practice will only include the cost of rearing
the modified DBM and releasing them onto the farms, which will be done at the growers
discretion. In the case of continued practice of this method, there will be annual assessment of
wild DBM populations. My project will act as a pilot program, which if proven successful, has
the potential to be adopted by numerous growers across the state, and potentially the world.

10

References
Apply For Space: Harlem Biospace. (n.d.). Retrieved from Harlem Biospace:
http://harlembiospace.com/apply-for-space/
Badenes-Perez, F. R., Shelton, A. M., Nault, B. A. (2004). Evaluating Trap Crops or
Diamondback Moth, Plutella xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae). Journal Of Economic
Entomology, 97(4), 1365-1372. doi:10.1093/jee/97.4.1365
Bommarco, R., Miranda, F., Bylund, H., & Bjrkman, C. (2011). Insecticides Suppress Natural
Enemies and Increase Pest Damage in Cabbage. Journal Of Economic Entomology,
104(3), 782. doi:10.1603/EC10444
Crop Costs on Illinois Grain Farms. (2004, March 9). Retrieved from Farm Business
Management:
http://www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/manage/newsletters/fefo04_04/fefo04_04.pdf
Furlong, M. J., Wright, D. J., & Dosdall, L. M. (2013). Diamondback Moth Ecology and
Management: Problems, Progress, and Prospects. Annual Review Of Entomology, 58(I,
II), 517-541. doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153605
Giles, M. (2015). Mosquitoes Designed To Self-Destruct. Popular Science, 287(1), 31. Retrieved
from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aa538801-edbe-4b9283bb-10d3dddb86d5%40sessionmgr4004&vid=2&hid=4113
Group, E. (2013). What is the Bt Toxin? Retrieved from
http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/natural-health/what-is-the-bt-toxin/
Harvey-Samuel, T., Morrison, N. I., Walker, A. S., Marubbi, T., Yao, J., Collins, H. L.,
Alphey, L. (2015). Pest control and resistance management through release of insects
carrying male-select transgene. BMC Biology, 13(49). doi:10.1186/s12915-015-0161-1

11

Macharia I., Lohr, B. & Groote, H. D. (2005). Assessing the potential impact of biological
control of Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth) in cabbage production in Kenya. Crop
Protection, 24(11), 981-989. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2005.02.005
Miranda, F., Bylund, H., Grnberg, L., Larsson, L., & Bjrkman, C. (2011). Population Density
and Killing Capacity by Predators of Eggs and Larvae of the Diamondback Moth in
Nicaragua. Environmental Entomology, 40(2), 333. doi:10.1603/EN10277
Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth). (2014, September 9). Retrieved from Invasive Species
Compendium: http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/42318
Powell, D. (2015). Replacing Pesticides with Genetics. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/science/replacing-pesticides-with-genetics.html
Shelton, A. M. (2001a, November). Management of the diamondback moth: dj vu all over
again? Retrieved from Cornell University College of Agricultral and Life Sciences:
http://web.entomology.cornell.edu/shelton/diamondbackmoth/pdf/2001papers/2001DBM01.pdf
Shelton, A. M. (2001b, November). Regional outbreaks of diamondback moth due to movement
of contaminated plants and favourable climatic conditions. Retrieved from Cornell
University College of Agricultural and Life Sciences:
http://web.entomology.cornell.edu/shelton/diamondbackmoth/pdf/2001papers/2001DBM13.pdf
Shelton, A. M., & Wyman, J. A. (n.d.). Insecticide Resistance of Diamondback Moth in North
America. Retrieved from Cornell University College of Agricultral and Life Sciences:
http://web.entomology.cornell.edu/shelton/diamondbackmoth/pdf/1990papers/1990DBM50.pdf

12

Zalucki, M. P., Shabbir, A., Silva, R., Adamson, D., Shu-Sheng, L., & Furlong, M. J. (2012).
Estimating the Economic Cost of One of the World's Major Insect Pests, Plutella
xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae): Just How Long Is a Piece of String?. Journal Of
Economic Entomology, 105(4), 1115.
What Does is Cost to Run a Small College Lab? (2011, August 16). Retrieved from Science
Blogs: http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/08/16/what-does-it-cost-to-run-a-sma/

13