Using Mating Disruption in Orchards and Vineyards
Mating disruption is a biocontrol technique that involves placing dispensers to saturate the orchard atmosphere with female pheromones and thus prevent males from locating females, thereby limiting mating and egg laying.
1. Presentation
Description of the technique
Information originally sourced from the Guide for designing fruit production systems that reduce phytosanitary product use (2014) / Technical sheet no. 17.
Principle
Mating disruption is a biocontrol technique that involves placing dispensers to saturate the orchard atmosphere with female pheromones and thus prevent males from locating females, thereby limiting mating and egg laying.
The effectiveness of this method is highly dependent on the area size. The larger the area, the more effective the disruption. This often requires coordination among farmers within the same territory.
The minimum area varies from 1 to 3 ha and depends on the type of dispenser, the target pest, pest pressure, and tree shape.
Mating disruption is a key tool for:
- the codling moth (Cydia pomonella) on apple, pear, quince, and walnut;
- the Oriental fruit moth (Cydia molesta) on peach, apricot, plum, pome fruits;
- the plum fruit moth (Cydia funebrana) on plum;
- the Cochylis (Eupoecilia ambiguella) and European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) on vine (table grape).
Implementation methods
To ensure better effectiveness of this technique, besides area size, type of dispenser, targeted pest, and crop to protect, it is also important to:
- act on low to moderate initial populations,
- install dispensers before the first flight or appearance of sensitive organs,
- place them in the upper third of the tree.
Installing the dispensers is easy but must be done at height using a pole, ladders, a lift platform, a basket, a drone, or a "gun, paintball type (example for pine processionary, a method also tested in walnut and chestnut)" depending on tree size.
1 to 3 installations per season depending on the target and dispenser type are recommended. Their longevity must be sufficient to cover the desired risk period; otherwise, reinstallation is necessary (often 1 installation/year per product) or protection duration should be extended by other methods.
This practice requires regular observations (every 10 to 15 days) on the upper parts of trees and fruits, with particular attention to the edges of the "disrupted" zone to ensure method effectiveness and to intervene quickly if disruption alone is insufficient.
Complementary tools to mating disruption exist, such as a biological development model (codling moth) to finely identify high-risk periods and trapping to monitor other Lepidoptera.
Technical details
- It is important to work on a homogeneous area, compact in shape, with a healthy environment (beware of non-disrupted orchards within 500 m).
- On small plots, models using a high number of dispensers should be favored.
- The plot environment must be considered (e.g., presence of urban lighting or wooden pallet storage areas). It can be specifically reinforced with puffers.
- Generally, an increase of 10 to 20% in dispenser number is necessary on edges.
- For codling moth in apples and pears (Cydia pomonella), there is a trap combining overdosed pheromone and food attractant to verify disruption effectiveness (classic sex pheromone traps do not catch moths in "disrupted" orchards).
Implementation period: On established crops
Spatial scale of implementation:
- Farm
- Territory
To be effective, this technique must be implemented over a sufficient area and generally requires coordination among neighboring producers. Indeed, if nearby plots are untreated, fertilized females can migrate to disrupted plots.
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Not generalizable
This technique is currently operational only in viticulture and in arboriculture (pome fruits, peach, apricot, plum, walnut). Tests are underway for managing Sesamia in corn but costs are currently too high.
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
No constraint on protection renewal if washed off by rain
Regulations
Prefectural orders related to BCAE standards "Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions"
The implementation of mating disruption using specific Lepidoptera pheromone dispensers in crops of apple, pear, and walnut trees or peach, apricot, and plum is subject to a CEPP sheet (action no. 5: Control of Lepidoptera pests in orchards using pheromone dispensers for mating disruption).
Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality:
- Reduction of phytosanitary emissions
- Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions due to no mechanized intervention and presumably limited impact from pheromone production.
- Reduced risk of transfer compared to chemical insecticide use.
Effect on water quality:
- Reduction of pesticide runoff into water
- Reduced risk of transfer compared to chemical insecticide use.
- No risk of leaching.
Effect on fossil resource consumption:
- Reduced fossil energy consumption due to minimal mechanized intervention generally (in some cases, installation with a platform is necessary) and presumably limited impact from pheromone production.
Mating disruption reduces the use of phytosanitary products, notably some insecticides with significant toxicological and ecotoxicological effects (harmful to humans and the environment). However, most dispensers are currently not biodegradable. Reusable puffers exist, usable each year.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: This technique is very effective in the crops where it is applied (viticulture, arboriculture).
Production quality:
- No pheromone residues on fruits.
- Reduction of residues by limiting/eliminating targeted interventions close to harvest.
Functional Biodiversity:
- Thanks to reduced insecticide use and the harmlessness of pheromones to beneficials, this method promotes their development.
Pheromones are generally exempt from toxicological classification (harmless to auxiliaries) and are highly species-specific. Their substitution for chemical insecticides is expected to have a positive effect on biodiversity.
However, both positive effects (beneficials of the pear psylla, some aphids...) and negative effects (emergence of secondary bioaggressors (leafrollers, etc.)) can be observed due to no or limited use of broad-spectrum insecticides.
"Economic" criteria
Operational costs:
- Reduction in insecticide costs and application costs in general. However, for some species (plum, walnut), this technique may increase costs as it replaces a small number of treatments.
- Need to purchase dispensers (€150-350/ha per year) and invest labor for monitoring and installation.
- Trials against corn Sesamia have not yet led to field applications mainly due to high cost.
Mechanization costs:
- Reduction compared to chemical treatments.
Margin:
Essential in organic farming, regardless of production region. In high-pressure zones, this technique allows to:
- limit fruit damage levels
- better manage resistance risks
- sustain existing complementary methods.
Other economic criteria:
- Reduced fuel consumption due to minimal mechanized intervention.
"Social" criteria
Working time:
- Reduced compared to chemical treatments.
Peak period:
- This technique requires training, frequent visual inspections, and installation time (with a platform or a pole from 0.5 to 5 h/ha, depending on product and installation method). For walnut, installation can be lengthy when trees are tall (more expensive if using a drone, but not slower).
- However, it allows less treatment time during the season (possible interventions only during high-risk periods and on the G3 generation in concerned regions). Dispensers are installed early in the season, thus outside peak work periods (except if managing hail nets to be deployed after frost risk).
On apple: flexibility in organizing summer treatments (e.g., bitter pit, clearwing moth...). This avoids multiple insecticide treatments.
Observation time:
- Need for frequent visual inspections: about 30 min every 10-15 days (inspection of 300-500 fruits/ha), i.e., 4 to 6 h/ha per year.
Monitoring remains necessary as treatments may be required if failure occurs.
Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Favored bioaggressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum) | pest, predator or parasite | The reduction in insecticide treatments linked to mating disruption requires vigilance regarding the development of other bioaggressors. |
Disadvantaged bioaggressors
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| European red mite (Panonychus ulmi) | red mite (Panonychus ulmi) | on apple | |
| Codling moth (Cydia pomonella) | pest, predator or parasite | applies to apple, pear and walnut | |
| Plum fruit moth (Cydia funebrana) | pest, predator or parasite | applies to plum | |
| Cochylis | pest, predator or parasite | applies to vine (table grape) | |
| European grapevine moth | pest, predator or parasite | applies to vine (table grape) | |
| Small fruit tortrix (Cydia lobarzewskii) | pest, predator or parasite | ||
| Oriental fruit moth (Cydia molesta) | pest, predator or parasite | applies to peach, apricot, plum, apple and pear | |
| pear psylla (Cacopsylla pyri) | pest, predator or parasite |
Favored auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spiders | Natural enemies of bioaggressors |
5. For further information
- Rousseau J. (ICV); Auge G. (Cabinet AGEREF); Mallet O. (Die cooperative cellar); Rieux J.M. (Civam bio LR); Guerber M. (CA Gard); L'Helgoualch E. (CA Vaucluse); Warlop F. (GRAB); Molot B. (ITV), Characteristics of treatment products in organic viticulture
- ITAB (Techn'ITAB viticulture sheet), Technical brochure Mating disruption
- French Plant Protection Association (AFPP), coordination: Jean-Louis Bernard. AFPP guide working group, provisional document as of 12 February 2011, Technical brochure, 2011
- Mating disruption against the codling moth, La Pugère Station, Technical brochure, 2000
- Mating disruption, a growing method in Aude - Bulletin VITI-F. BOYER et al.
- Chamber of Agriculture of Aude, Technical brochure, 2016, link to brochure
- Costs of supplies in arboriculture 2014 - Chamber of Agriculture of Vaucluse and GDA arboriculture of Vaucluse, GDA, Cavaillon, Book, 2014
- Technical sheet: control of oriental fruit moth and Anarsia - Chamber of Agriculture Languedoc-Roussillon, Technical brochure, 2011
- Guide for designing fruit production systems that reduce phytosanitary product use / Technical sheets - GIS Fruits, Ministry of Agriculture, Book, 2014 See link
- Integrated fruit production guide 2014 - Regional Chamber of Agriculture Paca, La Pugère Station, Objectifs Info Arbo, Technical brochure, 2014
- Reducing the use of phytosanitary products. Paths for arboricultural farms in Rhône-Alpes. ECOPHYTO DEPHY program - Regional Chamber of Agriculture Rhône Alpes - Ministry of Agriculture, Professional report, 2015, link to report
6. Keywords
Bioaggressor control method: Biological control
Mode of action: Action on initial stock
Type of pesticide use strategy: Substitution
Annexes
S'applique aux cultures suivantes
Favorise les bioagresseurs suivants
Favorise les auxiliaires
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
