Moth Monitoring Trials:

Comparison of catches from three different types of pheromone trap

——————————————
Acheta Consulting Ltd, Threave House, Long Street, Belton, Loughborough. LE12 9TP
john.simmons@acheta.co.uk

Introduction Demi Diamond (DD) Trap Test 2

 Funnel traps are used to  DD lures were ‘aged’ by
monitor stored product opening them at fort-
moth activity in most nightly intervals, giving
European food manufac- ages of 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8
turing sites. weeks old at the start of
 A number of alternative the trial.
trap designs are avail-
 Lures were located in
able. These differ in the
way they release the
groups of five (one of
pheromone, or the way each age) at 10 locations
in which moths are Test 1 throughout the site,
trapped  Three food sites (with spaced 3-4m apart and
Ephestia spp present) randomised with regards
were selected; a proces- to trap age to eliminate
Delta (DT) Trap any possible bias caused
sor of dried fruit and
nuts, a cereal manufac- by trap location.
turing plant (with either  Lure sets were aged at
E. cautella or elutella) two temperatures; 3-40C
and a flour mill (E. and 18-240C.
kuehniella).  Counts were recorded
 A total of 10 trap loca- after 11 days.
tions were selected in  All catches in this trial
each site.
were Ephestia
Project aims  10 of each of the 3 trap
kuehniella.
1. To compare the perform- types were installed and
ance of Demi-Diamond counts taken after 7 days.
(DD), Delta (DT) and Traps were then relo-
cated to a different loca- Funnel (FT) Trap
Funnel (FT) traps over a
three-week period, tion.
changing the trap loca-  This was repeated after a
tion each week to over- further week.
come any location bias.  Thus, after three weeks
2. To determine the efficacy each type of trap had oc-
of DD lures ‘aged’ for up cupied all 10 locations.
to 8 weeks.  To avoid disruption to
3. To repeat the aged lures existing monitoring per-
trial, using lures aged at manent monitors were
two different tempera- left in place.
tures.

Independent Training, Auditing

and Consultancy for Pest Control
Trap comparison results (Test 1)
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
DD DT FT DD DT FT DD DT FT
Week
1 8 3 0 22 1 0 124 79 58
2 6 5 4 7 0 0 30 37 117
3 6 5 1 4 0 0 22 92 128

Aggregate 20 13 5 33 1 0 176 208 303

Conclusions (Test 1)
 At sites 1 and 2 DD traps out-performed both other traps, with DT’s also out-performing
FT’s at site 1.
 At site 3 the DD traps outperform the other traps in week 1 but are themselves signifi-
cantly outperformed in weeks 2 and 3, with FTs outperforming DTs, except in week 1.
 The species of moth involved at site 3 (E. kuehniella) was not present at the other two
sites. If species was a factor, a consistent trend would have been expected, whereas in
fact week 1 results were very different to those in weeks 2 and 3.
 We observed that in areas of high moth activity (site 3) the DD pads can quickly be ren-
dered ineffective if large numbers are caught. The glue-pad will hold around 30 to 40
moths at most, and catch efficacy probably declines as this number is approached.
 We have been running all three trap types as permanent monitors of moth activity in a
cereal processing site for almost two years, with the results shown below: We believe
that DD’s can be a more effective monitor of moth activity than either FT’s or DT’s.

Trap catch comparison

250

FT's 2008
200 DT's 2008
DD's 2008
Cumulative catch

FT's 2009
150
DT's 2009
DD's 2009

100

50

Week number

Independent Training, Auditing

and Consultancy for Pest Control
 Effect of temperature on
trap catch
45
Effect of lure age on catch
100 105 110
40 42
Aggregate catch from 5 lures

35

30 75
25
28
24
20 21
19
50
15

10

5 25
0
8 6 4 2 0
Age of lure at start of trial 0
3-4oC 18-24oC

Conclusions (Test 2)
 Aging the lures for up to eight weeks before the trial showed that there was no discern-
able lessening of lure effectiveness after 8 weeks. Lures appeared to be most effective 2
weeks after opening.
 Aging lures two different temperatures; 3-40C and 18-240C, with counts recorded after a
further 11 days, indicated that temperature had no discernable affect on lure life.

Conclusion:

DD traps are a far more sensitive monitor of moth activity over short periods and can pro-
vide answers to questions relating to moth infestation far more quickly than other methods.
Results may often be obtained overnight.

Being small and easily sited, DD traps can be used in large numbers in combination with
other spatial monitoring techniques, such as contour mapping, which provides a highly vis-
ual means of presenting moth monitoring data.

DD lures certainly appear to be adequate for routine permanent use if renewed at least
every 4 weeks (if used as the primary monitor). On sites with little or no activity it is early
warning and trends that are important and 6 weekly changes should still provide this. lure
renewal frequency should never exceed 6 weeks.

Independent Training, Auditing

and Consultancy for Pest Control