Skip to main content
Canna~Fangled Abstracts

Bycatch of common pollinators in pheromone baited traps for monitoring corn earworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Missouri Industrial Hemp

By February 4, 2025February 5th, 2025No Comments

. 2025 Feb 4;7(1):10.

doi: 10.1186/s42238-025-00266-y.

Clement Akotsen-Mensah 1 2, Isaac N Ativor 3, Caroline N Foba 4, Valliyodan Babu 4
Affiliations 

Abstract

Background: Several traps are recommended for monitoring corn earworm, Helicoverpa zea (Boddie), an important pest of field, vegetable and fruit crops in the U.S. These traps, which are meant to capture H. zea in many cases end up capturing other insects. Helicoverpa zea has recently been found feeding on different seeds and dual-type (seed and fiber) hemp, Cannabis sativa L. (Rosales: Cannabaceae) causing serious damage. Limited work has been done on developing integrated pest management (IPM) for H. zea industrial hemp in Missouri.

Methods: We evaluated the attractiveness of different traps with the aim of developing a monitoring system for the adult male H. zea in industrial hemp fields in two Missouri locations. In addition, we recorded other non-target insects in the traps to determine trap selectivity. Commercially available green, clear, tricolor bucket traps Heliothis Scentry and Scentry Delta 1X traps baited with H. zea sex pheromones were evaluated in 2021 and 2022.

Results: Tricolor traps captured significantly more adult male H. zea than the other traps in both years. Non-target insects, mainly Xylocopa virginica (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), and Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) were also captured. The tricolor trap captured the most bees.

Conclusions: The presence of non-target species highlights the risk of using tricolor traps as a monitoring tool. This data provides information for planning the monitoring of corn earworm in industrial hemp farms in Missouri.

Keywords: Cannabis sativa, Helicoverpa zea, Non-target species, Pest, Pheromone-baited traps, bees

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

References

    1. Adesina I, Bhowmik A, Sharma H, Shahbazi A. A review on the current state of knowledge of growing conditions, Agronomic Soil Health Practices and Utilities of Hemp in the United States. Agriculture. 2020;10(4):129. – DOI
    1. Mark T, Shepherd J, Olson D, Snell W, Proper S, Thornsbury S. Economic Viability of Industrial Hemp in the United States: a review of State Pilot Programs. United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service; 2020.
    1. Tancig M, Kelly-Begazo C, Kaur N, Sharma L, Brym Z. Industrial Hemp in the United States: Definition and History: SS-AGR-457/AG458, 9/2021. EDIS [Internet]. 2021 Sep 17 [cited 2024 Oct 30];2021(5). Available from: https://journals.flvc.org/edis/article/view/128860
    1. Horner J, Ohmes A, Massey R, Luce G, Bissonnette K, Milhollin R et al. Missouri Industrial Hemp Prod Missouri; 2019 p. 1–45. (Missouri Industrial Hemp Production).
    1. Johnson N, American Weed. A History of Cannabis Cultivation in the United States. EchoGéo. 2019;48. Available from: https://journals.openedition.org/echogeo/17650. Cited 2024 Nov 2.

Leave a Reply