In the absence of effective control measures, the strawberry blossom weevil (Anthonomus rubi) (SBW) and the raspberry beetle (Byturus tomentosus) (RB) cause large (10 - >80%) losses in yield and quality in organically grown raspberry. Attractive lures for both pests were combined into a single multitrap for the economical management of both of these pests at the same time. This is one of the first approaches to pest management of non-lepidopteran insect pests of horticultural crops using semiochemicals in the EU, and probably the first to target multiple species from different insect orders. The aim is to develop optimized lures and cost-effective trap designs for mass trapping and to determine the optimum density and spatial and temporal patterns of deployment of the traps for controlling these pests by mass trapping. The combination between an aggregation pheromone that attracts Anthonomus rubi and a raspberry flower volatile that attracts Byturus tomentosus seems to be the best combination

Baroffio, Catherine

Borg-Karlson, Anna-Karin

Cross, Jerry

Fountain, Michelle

Guibert, Virginie

Hall, David

Ralle, Baiba

Richoz, Pauline

Rogivue, Aude

Sigsgaard, Lene

Trandem, Nina

Wibe, Atle

Baroffio, C. A.

Guibert, V.

Richoz, P.

Rogivue, A.

Borg-Karlsson, A. K.

Cross, J.

Fountain, M.

Hall, D.

Ralle, B.

Trandem, N.

Wibe, A.

Copenhagen University Research Information System

Management of insect pests using semiochemical traps

Organic Eprints

   Acta Hortic. 1137. ISHS 2016. DOI 10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1137.17 Proc. Int. Symp. on Innovation in Integrated and Organic Horticulture (INNOHORT) Eds.: S. Bellon et al. 121 Management of insect pests using semiochemical traps C.A.	Baroffio1,a,	V.	Guibert1,	P.	Richoz1,	A.	Rogivue1,	A.K.	Borg-Karlsson2,	J.	Cross3,	M.	Fountain3,	D.	Hall4,	B.	Ralle5,	L.	Sigsgaard6,	N.	Trandem7	and	A.	Wibe8	1Agroscope	 IPS,	 Conthey,	 Switzerland;	 2KTH	Royal	 Inst.	 of	 Techn.,	 Stockholm,	 Sweden;	 3East	Malling	Research,	Kent,	United	Kingdom;	 4Natural	Resources	 Institute,	Kent,	United	Kingdom;	 5Latv.	Plant	Prot	Res.	Centre,	Riga,	Latvia;	6University	of	Copenhagen,	Frederiksberg,	Denmark;	7Bioforsk,	Aǒ s,	Norway;	8Bioforsk,	Tingvoll,	Norway.	Abstract In	 the	 absence	 of	 effective	 control	 measures,	 the	 strawberry	 blossom	 weevil	(Anthonomus rubi)	(SBW)	and	the	raspberry	beetle	(Byturus tomentosus)	(RB)	cause	large	 (10	 -	 >80%)	 losses	 in	 yield	 and	 quality	 in	 organically	 grown	 raspberry.	Attractive	 lures	 for	 both	 pests	 were	 combined	 into	 a	 single	 multitrap	 for	 the	economical	management	of	both	of	 these	pests	at	 the	same	 time.	This	 is	one	of	 the	first	approaches	to	pest	management	of	non-lepidopteran	insect	pests	of	horticultural	crops	using	semiochemicals	in	the	EU,	and	probably	the	first	to	target	multiple	species	from	different	insect	orders.	The	aim	is	to	develop	optimized	lures	and	cost-effective	trap	designs	for	mass	trapping	and	to	determine	the	optimum	density	and	spatial	and	temporal	 patterns	 of	 deployment	 of	 the	 traps	 for	 controlling	 these	 pests	 by	 mass	trapping.	 The	 combination	 between	 an	 aggregation	 pheromone	 that	 attracts	Anthonomus rubi	 and	 a	 raspberry	 flower	 volatile	 that	 attracts	 Byturus tomentosus	seems	to	be	the	best	combination.	Keywords:	Anthonomus	rubi,	Byturus	tomentosus,	semiochemical	trap,	raspberry	INTRODUCTION	The	 strawberry	 blossom	 weevil	 called	 SBW	 (Anthonomus	 rubi	 Herbst)	 and	 the	raspberry	 beetle	 called	 RB	 (Byturus	 tomentosus	 DeGeer)	 are	 two	 important	 pests	 in	raspberries	in	northern	and	central	Europe.	They	cause	yield	and	quality	losses	up	to	80%.	The	strawberry	blossom	weevil,	a	3-	to	3.5-mm	beetle,	overwinters	as	adult,	begins	activity	in	 April	 and	 mates	 in	 May	 (Stäubli	 and	 Höhn,	 1989)	 In	 Switzerland,	 the	 pest	 is	 mainly	present	in	the	crops	in	the	mountains.	It	feeds	on	raspberry	leaves	and	flowers.	The	female	lays	20-30	eggs	in	the	flower	buds	and	cuts	them	after.	The	SBW	can	destroy	as	many	buds	as	egg	laid:	65	to	85%	of	the	cut	buds	contains	only	1	egg	(Popov,	1996).	In	Switzerland,	the	SBW	 can	 destroy	 30%	 of	 the	 flower	 buds	 in	 a	 crop	 and	 in	 Norway,	 it	 can	 be	 80%	 (Nina	Trandem,	 pers.	 commun.).	 The	 actual	 economical	 damage	 threshold	 is	 10%	 of	 the	 flower	trusses	damaged	by	a	control	of	100	trusses	1000	m-2	(Linder	et	al.,	2012).	The	raspberry	beetle,	a	4-	to	5-mm	beetle,	overwinters	as	adult,	begins	activity	in	April	and	mates	in	May	(Antonin,	1984).	Females	lay	100	eggs	in	flowers	or	young	fruits	with	an	average	of	1-3	eggs	day-1.	The	economical	damage	 threshold	 is	1	adult	 for	100	 flower	 trusses.	With	 the	Rebell	traps	 bianco,	 the	 threshold	 is	 10	 catches	 trap-1	 week-1.	 Damage	 is	 caused	 by	 larval	development	 in	 fruits	 for	B.	 tomentosus.	 Presently,	 there	 are	 only	 chemical	 treatments	 to	control	 the	 strawberry	 blossom	weevil	 and	 a	 semiochemical	 trap	 has	 been	 developed	 to	control	the	raspberry	beetle	(Baroffio	et	al.,	2012;	Birch	et	al.,	2009).	Alternative	methods	of	control	are	required	by	growers,	organic	or	not,	and	by	consumers.	“Softpest	Multitrap”	is	a	EU	FP7	Core	Organic	2	project	(2012-14)	with	the	aim	to	develop	in	strawberry	a	common	trap	 against	 Lygus	 rugulipennis	 and	 Anthonomus	 rubi	 and	 in	 raspberry	 a	 common	 trap	against	Byturus	tomentosus	and	Anthonomus	rubi.	Experiments	were	done	in	six	countries	to	find	and	to	test	a	common	semiochemical	trap	for	both	pests	in	each	crop	(Wibe	et	al.,	2012).	The	 attractant	 for	 A.	 rubi	 is	 composed	 of	 the	 male	 aggregation	 pheromone	 and	 a	 plant	                                                                aE-mail: catherine.baroffio@agroscope.admin.ch   122 volatile.	 The	 attractant	 for	B.	 tomentosus	 is	 a	 raspberry	 flower	 volatile.	 Lure	 combination	trials	 were	 performed	 in	 Switzerland	 and	 in	 Norway	 in	 raspberry	 to	 find	 the	 best	combination.	The	Swiss	results	2012-2014	are	presented	here.	MATERIALS	AND	METHODS	The	 trials	 were	 conducted	 between	 2012	 and	 2014	 in	 Switzerland.	 The	 plots	 were	located	in	Wallis,	in	the	mountains	(Table	1).	Green	bucket	traps	with	white	cross-vanes	and	a	 bee	 excluder	 grid	 were	 employed	 (Figure	 1).	 Trapping	 was	 carried	 out	 from	 April	 to	October	 2013	 and	 2014.	 Captures	were	 checked	 every	week	 and	 lures	 changed	 every	4-8	weeks.	 The	 traps	 were	 filled	 with	 water	 containing	 Triton	 X-100	 (10	 mL	 Triton	 in	 10	 L	water).	Three	different	trials	were	initiated.	Table	1.	Plot	and	crop	description	of	the	Swiss	trials	between	2012	and	2014.	Year Location Altitude (m) Surface (m2) Plantation year Mypex Plantation density (m2) Trial 2012 Bruson 1060 1000 2005 yes 3 Nr1 Trap height 2012 St Sébastien 1000 3000 2004 no 3 Nr1 Trap height 2012 Les Bioleys 1000 2000 2005 no 3 Nr1 Trap height 2013 Bruson 1060 1000 2005 yes 3 Nr2 Trap design 2013 Chardonney 1000 1500 2006 yes 3 Nr3 Lure combination 2014 Salins 750 3000 2009 no 3 Nr3 Lure combination 	Figure	1.	 Description	of	the	5	types	of	traps.	From	left	to	right:	green	bucket	without	vanes;	green	bucket	with	 square	white	 vanes;	 green	bucket	with	double	height	 square	vanes;	 green	bucket	with	 trapezoidal	white	vanes	 (standard	 trap);	white	bucket	with	white	trapezoidal	white	vanes.	Trial	1:	trap	height	Three	different	heights	were	compared:	0.00,	0.75	and	1.50	m.	Traps	were	baited	with	the	standard	lure	combination	for	Anthonomus	rubi	in	2012	in	3	different	plots	within	a	line	and	an	 interval	of	3	meters	between	each	 trap.	There	were	3	 replicates	 in	each	plot,	 each	time	in	a	different	position.	Traps	were	checked	weekly.	Trial	2:	trap	design	Trap	design	was	tested	in	Bruson	in	2013.	Different	colours	and	shapes	were	tested:	a)	without	 vanes,	 b)	 square	 vanes,	 c)	 double	 height	 square	 vanes,	 d)	 trapezoidal	 vanes	(standard	 trap),	 e)	 standard	 trap	 completely	white	 (Figure	1).	Traps	were	baited	with	 the	lures	 attracting	 both	 insects:	 a	 raspberry	 flower	 volatile	 (rv)	 to	 attract	 RB,	 and	 an	aggregation	 pheromone	 and	 a	 strawberry	 flower	 volatile	 (pv2)	 to	 attract	 the	 SBW.	 Traps	were	 set	 on	week	25	 (2013)	with	6	 replicates.	 Traps	were	 set	 randomly	 on	 each	of	 the	6	lines	with	a	7-m	distance	between	 the	 traps	and	a	2.15-m	width	between	 the	 lines.	Traps	were	checked	weekly.	    123 Trial	3:	lure	combination	Traps	with	different	lure	combinations	were	tested	in	2013	and	2014.	Each	trap	had	different	 lure	combinations	(Table	2).	The	attractant	 for	A.	rubi	was	composed	of	 the	male	aggregation	pheromone	and	a	plant	volatile	(aggregation	pheromone	was	composed	of	100	µL	normal	1:4:1	blend	of	grandlure	1:	grandlure;	2:	lavandulol,	and	the	plant	volatile	(PV2)	was	composed	of	200	mg	of	strawberry	flower	volatile)	(Cross	et	al.,	2006;	Innocenzi	et	al.,	2001;	 Wibe	 et	 al.,	 2014).	 The	 attractant	 for	 B.	 tomentosus	 (RV)	 was	 composed	 of	 2	 g	 of	raspberry	 flower	 volatile	 (Birch	et	 al.,	 2009;	Woodford	 et	 al.,	 2003).	 Six	 replicates	of	 each	combination	were	randomly	placed	in	the	plots.	The	traps	were	placed	with	a	distance	of	10	m	 between	 them.	 The	 catches	were	 counted	 and	 identified,	 and	 also	 sexed	 for	A.	 rubi,	 at	weekly	 intervals.	 Cut	 bud	 damage	 caused	 by	 A.	 rubi	 was	 assessed	 for	 20	 inflorescences	around	each	trap.	Damage	inflicted	by	B.	tomentosus	was	assessed	by	counting	larvae	in	120	fruits	 collected	 randomly	 in	 the	 plot	 at	 3	 dates:	 begin,	 mid	 and	 end	 of	 harvest	 (wk	 31:	phenological	 stage	 89	 –	 1st	 fruits	 coloured;	 wk	 32:	 phenological	 stage	 839	 –	 30%	 fruits	harvested;	wk	33:	phenological	stage	897	–	70%	fruits	harvested).	Statistics	were	executed	with	the	R	software	(Kruskal-Wallis	and	pairwise	multiple	comparison).	Table	2.	Different	lure	combination	tested	in	2013	and	2014.	Combination Target Year Aggregation pheromone (Agg ph) + PV2 (=standard combination) A. rubi 2013 2014 PV2 A. rubi 2014 Rapsberry volatile (RV) B. tomentosus 2013 2014 RV+Agg ph + PV2 A. rubi 2013 B. tomentosus 2014 RV + PV2 A. rubi 2013 B. tomentosus RV + Agg ph A. rubi 2013 B. tomentosus 2014 Aggregation pheromone (Agg ph) + PV2high + RV A. rubi 2014 B. tomentosus RESULTS	AND	DISCUSSIONS	Trial	1:	trap	height	The	first	SBW	were	caught	in	the	weeks	17-20	(BBCH	45-47)	before	the	development	of	 the	 flower	 buds	 (Figure	 2).	 SBW	 was	 more	 attracted	 by	 the	 traps	 set	 on	 the	 ground	(Kruskal-Wallis,	p<0,001)	than	traps	put	at	0.75	and	1.50	m.	RB	was	caught	at	the	3	heights	without	significant	difference.	The	results	in	Norway	(not	shown	here)	give	a	similar	pattern.	This	experiment	shows	that	for	effective	trapping	the	trap	must	be	set	on	the	ground	early	in	the	season	to	catch	the	overwintering	generation	of	SBW	and	the	flight	of	the	RB	before	the	flowering	period	of	strawberry.	Trial	2:	trap	design	Regarding	the	designs	and	colors	of	the	traps,	SWD	showed	no	significant	preference	between	 variants,	 but	 the	 number	 of	 catches	were	 low	 in	 Switzerland.	 The	 standard	 trap	with	 trapezoidal	 vanes	 and	 the	model	with	 square	 vanes	 captured	both	 insects,	while	 the	double-height	model	 captured	many	weevils	 and	 a	 few	Byturus,	 while	models	 1	 (without	vanes)	 and	 5	 (completely	white)	 did	 not	 capture	Byturus	 (Figure	 3).	 The	 standard	model	was	appropriate	to	test	combinations	of	lures.	 124 	Figure	2.	 Relationship	 between	 SBW	 abundance	 and	 the	 height	 of	 traps	 in	 three	 Swiss	locations	 (left).	 Relationship	 between	 RB	 abundance	 and	 the	 height	 of	 traps	 in	three	Swiss	locations	in	2012	in	raspberry.	Average	of	3	replicates	per	plot.		Figure	3.	 Relationship	between	SBW	and	RB	abundance	 in	 five	different	 traps	designs:	1:	green	bucket	without	 vanes;	 2:	 green	bucket	with	 square	white	 vanes;	 3:	 green	bucket	with	double	height	square	vanes;	4:	green	bucket	with	trapezoidal	white	vanes	(standard	trap);	5:	white	bucket	with	white	trapezoidal	white.	Average	of	6	replicates	in	Bruson	in	2013.	Trial	3:	lure	combination	Table	3	shows	the	catches	 in	2013	and	2014	for	SBW	and	RB	based	on	the	different	combinations	of	lures.	In	2014,	catches	were	very	low.	The	results	of	2013	and	2014	show	that	 the	 combination	 “rv	 +	 agg	 ph”	 is	 a	 suitable	 combination	 to	 attract	 both	 insects.	 This	combination	 is	 significantly	 different	 from	 the	 combinations	 “rv”	 and	 “rv	 +	 pv2”	 for	 SBW.	Combining	 lure	 types	 did	 not	 influence	 damage	 caused	 by	 SBW	 (Kruskal-Wallis	 p=0.84).	Damage	 increased	 over	 time	 between	 the	 beginning	 and	 the	 middle	 of	 flowering	 period	(Figure	4):	at	BBCH	63,	corresponding	to	over	30%	of	open	flowers,	the	damage	reached	50	buttons	 cut	 per	 100	 inflorescences.	 The	 RB	 catches	 are	 influenced	 by	 the	 combination	 of	lures	 (Kruskal-Wallis	 p=0.0082).	 As	 to	 their	 damage,	 the	 combination	 “rv	 +	 agg	 ph”	 was	associated	with	a	statistically	non-significant	reduction	in	fruit	damage	in	fruit	at	the	end	of	harvest.	 The	 Swiss	 results	 are	 similar	 to	 the	 Norwegian	 results	 (not	 shown	 in	 this	publication)	although	the	 latter	were	based	on	a	 larger	population	of	 insects	caught	 in	 the	traps.	Our	results	show	that	it	is	possible	to	attract	two	different	pests	in	the	same	trap	and	that	 the	best	combination	 is	 the	one	 that	 includes	 the	attractive	 floral	 for	 the	Byturus	 (rv)	    125 and	aggregation	pheromones	 (one	of	 the	 two	components	 the	standard	mixture)	 for	SBW,	either	for	the	number	of	catches	or	the	estimate	of	the	damage.	Table	3.	 Abundances	 of	 SBW	 and	 RB	 in	 standard	 traps	 in	 2013	 (St	 Sebastien)	 and	 2014	(Saline).	Lure combination SBW RB 2013 2014 2013 2014 agg ph + pv2 13 4 18 0 Rv 3 1 68 8 rv + agg ph + pv2 8 1 67 3 pv + pv2 0 - 52 - rv + agg ph 18 4 72 7 pv2 - 0 - 0 rb + agg ph + pv2 high - 3 - 8 	Figure	4.	 Relationship	between	the	5	different	lure	combinations	and	the	damages	assessed	by	the	number	of	cut	buds.	The	design	of	the	trap	should	be	further	improved:	an	aggregation	of	both	pests	was	visually	observed	around	 the	 traps,	 indicating	 the	 lures	attracted	 insects,	but	 insects	were	not	 found	 in	 the	 traps	after.	The	recorded	damage	 in	our	 tests	 is	 still	over	 the	economical	threshold.	We	did	not	find	a	clear	relationship	between	the	number	of	catches	and	damage,	suggesting	 that	 there	 is	 still	 scope	 to	 improve	 the	 attractiveness	 of	 the	 traps.	 Tests	 are	underway	to	improve	these	aspects.	However,	this	project	provided	interesting	insights	for	the	 biological	 control	 using	 semiochemicals.	When	 the	plot	with	 traps	 is	 compared	 to	 the	control	plot	without	any	 traps,	we	 found	a	 significant	 reduction	of	 the	damage	 in	 the	plot	with	traps	compared	to	the	plot	without	traps	(Figure	5).	The	Swiss	and	Norwegian	results	were	similar,	however,	the	Norwegian	catches	contained	a	higher	abundance	of	both	pests.	 126 	Figure	5.	 Relationship	between	damage	assessment	(number	of	cut	buds)	and	the	presence	or	not	of	traps	in	the	plot.	CONCLUSION	These	 experimental	 trials	 showed	 the	 best	 trap	 in	 raspberry	 is	 a	 green	bucket	with	white	trapezoidal	vanes	and	a	bee	exluder;	it	had	to	be	put	on	the	ground	every	10	m	on	the	plot	at	the	begin	of	vegetation,	in	April,	May	(stage	BBCH	45-47).	The	best	lure	combination	is,	according	to	our	results,	a	combination	of	an	aggregation	pheromone	of	A.	rubi	(SBW)	and	a	raspberry	volatile	which	attracts	B.	tomentosus	(RB).	Lures	must	be	changed	after	8	weeks	and	traps	are	set	in	April	to	catch	the	overwintering	generation	of	A.	rubi	to	the	end	of	the	harvest.	This	innovative	3-year	project	explores	new	directions	for	a	biological	control	with	semiochemical	traps.	There	is	still	some	research	to	be	done	to	find	the	right	trap	model	and	the	optimal	spatial	arrangement	of	traps.	ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	This	study	was	made	with	the	projet:	“Softpest	Multitrap”.	The	authors	thank	the	Swiss	government	for	the	project	funding	and	the	Core	Organic	project.	Literature	cited	Antonin,	P.	(1984).	Le	ver	des	framboises,	Byturus	tomentosus.	Rev.	Suisse	Vitic.	Arboric.	Hortic.	16,	103–105.	Baroffio,	 C.,	 Trandem,	 N.,	 and	 Birch,	 A.N.E.	 (2012).	 Efficiency	 of	 attractive	 traps	 in	 the	 fight	 against	 Byturus	tomentosus	 in	 raspberries:	 examples	 from	 Switzerland,	 Scotland	 and	 Norway.	 Acta	 Hortic.	 946,	 213–217	http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.946.33.	Birch,	 A.N.E.,	 Gordon,	 S.,	 Shepherd,	 T.,	 Griffith,	 W.,	 Robertson,	 G.,	 and	 Brennan,	 R.	 (2009).	 Development	 of	semiochemical	attractants,	 lures	and	traps	 for	raspberry	beetle,	Byturus	tomentosus	at	SCRI;	 from	fundamental	chemical	ecology	to	testing	IPM	tools	with	growers.	IOBC	WPRS	Bull.	41,	75–78.	Cross,	 J.V.,	Hall,	D.R.,	 Innocenzi,	 P.J.,	Hesketh,	H.,	 Jay,	 C.N.,	 and	Burgess,	 C.M.	 (2006).	Exploiting	 the	 aggregation	pheromone	of	strawberry	blossom	weevil	Anthonomus	rubi	(Coleontera:	Curculionidae):	Part	2.	Pest	monitoring	and	control.	Crop	Prot.	25	(2),	155–166	http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2005.04.004.	Innocenzi,	 P.J.,	 Hall,	 D.R.,	 and	 Cross,	 J.V.	 (2001).	 Components	 of	 male	 aggregation	 pheromone	 of	 strawberry	blossom	 weevil,	 Anthonomus	 rubi	 herbst.	 (Coleoptera:Curculionidae).	 J.	 Chem.	 Ecol.	 27	 (6),	 1203–1218	http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010320130073.	PubMed	Linder,	C.,	Baroffio,	C.,	 and	Mittaz,	C.	 (2012).	New	method	 for	monitoring	 the	damages	of	Anthonomus	rubi	 on	raspberry.	Rev.	Suisse	Vitic.	Arboric.	Hortic.	44	(3),	162–166.	Popov,	 S.Y.	 (1996).	 Possibility	 of	 monitoring	 the	 population	 density	 of	 the	 strawberry	 blossom	 weevil,	Anthonomus	rubi	Herbst	(Coleoptera,	Curculionidae),	on	strawberry	by	two	methods:	counting	clipped	buds	and	using	pheromone.	Entomol.	Rev.	(Engl.	Transl.)	75,	104–109.	Stäubli,	A.,	and	Höhn,	H.	(1989).	Anthonome	du	Fraisier	et	du	Framboisier	Antonomus	rubi	Hbst.	(Agroscope).	Wibe,	 A.,	 Baroffio,	 C.,	 Borg-Karlson,	 A.K.,	 Cross,	 J.,	 Hall,	 D.,	 Sigsgaard,	 L.,	 and	 Trandem,	 N.	 (2012).	 Softpest	Multitrap.	Management	of	strawberry	blossom	weevil	and	European	tarnished	plant	bug	in	organic	strawberry	    127 and	raspberry	using	semiochemical	traps.	Paper	presented	at:	VII	International	Strawberry	Symposium	(Beijing	China:	ISHS).	Wibe,	A.,	Borg-Karlson,	A.K.,	Cross,	J.V.,	Bichao,	H.,	Fountain,	M.,	Liblikas,	M.,	and	Sigsgaard,	L.	(2014).	Combining	1,4-dimethoxybenzene,	 the	 major	 flower	 volatile	 of	 wild	 strawberry	 Fragaria	 vesca,	 with	 the	 aggregation	pheromone	 of	 the	 strawberry	 blossom	 weevil	 Anthonomus	 rubi	 improves	 attraction.	 Crop	 Prot.	 64,	 122–128	http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.06.016.	Woodford,	A.T.,	Birch,	A.N.E.,	Gordon,	S.,	Griffith,	W.,	Mc	Nicol,	J.,	and	Robertson,	G.	(2003).	Controlling	raspberry	beetle	without	insecticide.	Integrated	plant	production	in	orchards.	IOBC	WPRS	Bull.	26,	87–92.	 	 128 	

Management of insect pests using semiochemical traps

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Copenhagen University Research Information System

Organic Eprints