7/26/2019 Jeon 2014h

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jeon-2014h 1/4

J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem (2014) 57(2), 197−200

DOI 10.1007/s13765-014-4006-3Online ISSN 2234-344X

Print ISSN 1738-2203

Phototactic Behavior 4: Attractive Effects ofTrialeurodes vaporariorum Adults to Light-emittingDiodes under Laboratory Conditions

Ju-Hyun Jeon · Min-Gi Kim · Hoi-Seon Lee

Received: 7 January 2014 / Accepted: 10 March 2014 / Published Online: 30 April 2014

© The Korean Society for Applied Biological Chemistry and Springer 2014

Abstract The phototactic action of the greenhouse whitefly,Trialeurodes vaporariorum (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), adults tolight-emitting diodes (LEDs) at various luminous intensities andlight exposure times was investigated in a Y-maze bioassaychamber, and was compared with a standard luring lamp, which isused in commercial electric traps. Blue LED (97.3%) exhibitedthe highest potential attraction rate, followed by green LED(96.6%), white LED (93.7%), red LED (93.0%), UV LED(90.3%), yellow LED (89.3%), and IR LED (7.7%). Based on therelative efficiency values, the blue LED was approximately 1.2times more effective than the luring lamp (84.3%). These resultssuggest that the blue LED was the most useful for monitoring of T. vaporariorum adults under optimal conditions.

Keywords light exposure time · luminous intensity · luring lamp· Y-maze bioassay chamber

The greenhouse whitefly, Trialeurodes vaporariorum Westwood(Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), is one of the most important andserious arthropod pests of vegetable and ornamental crops in

greenhouses (Gu et al., 2008; Moreau and Isman, 2011). Thegreenhouse whitefly can cause many serious injuries to plants,including contamination by sticky honeydew on leaf foliage, andreduced yields, by extracting water, photosynthetic products, andamino acids (Gu et al., 2008; Inbar and Gerling, 2008; Moreau and Isman, 2011). Further damage is caused by the transmissionof plant pathogenic viruses, such as the lettuce infectious yellowsvirus and the tomato chlorosis virus (Von Elling et al., 2002;

Mutwiwa and Tantau, 2005). Traditionally, primary managementof greenhouse whitefly on plants has relied on chemical applications,such as systemic neonicotinoids (Gu et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2009).Although effective, repeated and continued use of chemicalinsecticides have resulted in many problems, including potentialwhitefly resistance, risks to human health and to the environment,as well as other negative impacts (Kim et al., 2003; Yang et al.,2003; Lee et al., 2009). Hence, there is a need to develop non-toxic and effective management strategies for controlling T.vaporariorum .

Insect light traps have long been used for trapping variousspecies of insect pests (Gu et al., 2008; Jeon et al., 2012). In recentyears, commercial light traps have been replaced with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) that have several specific advantages,including low weight, small size, high energy efficiency, lowtemperature sensitivity, long operating lifetime, specific wavelengthselection, and low costs (Chen et al., 2004; Tamulaitis et al., 2005;Yeh and Chung, 2009). LEDs are also used for the monitoring ormass trapping of agricultural insect pests (Jeon et al., 2012). Insectvisual cues, color and contrast are used by insects to distinguishobjectives in environment (Antignus, 2000). It is widely knownthat insects recognize wavelengths between 350 and 700 nm (Cho

and Lee, 2012). Therefore, the objective of this study was toevaluate the phototactic response of T. vaporariorum adults todifferent wavelengths, various luminous intensities, and lightexposure times, with the use of LEDs under laboratory conditions.

The cultures of T. vaporariorum were obtained from the National Academy of Agricultural Science, RDA (Korea). Theinsects were mass reared on eggplants ( Solanum melongena ) ininsect rearing containers (45×45×45 cm) at 27±1 o C, 60±5%relative humidity, and a 16 h light/8 h dark photoperiod. Onlyadults of T. vaprariorum (mixed sex) were used for the behavioraltests.

The light-emitting diodes were purchased from the Ciel Light

Corporation (Korea) and Kodenshi Auk Co. Ltd (Korea). The

J.-H. Jeon · M.-G. Kim ( ) · H.-S. Lee ( )Department of Bioenvironmental Chemistry and Institute of AgriculturalScience & Technology, College of Agriculture & Life Science, Chonbuk

National University, Jeonju 561-756, Republic of Korea

E-mail: hoiseon@jbnu.ac.kr (H.-S Lee); mingi21c@jbnu.ac.kr (M.-G Kim)

SHORT COMMUNICATION

7/26/2019 Jeon 2014h

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jeon-2014h 2/4

198 J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem (2014) 57(2), 197 − 200

LED colors, part numbers, and wavelengths used were as follows:UV (365 nm), blue (CL-1W-UBB, 470±10 nm), green (CL-1W-UPGB, 520±5 nm), yellow (PP592-8L61-AOBI, 590±5 nm), red

(CL-1W-URB, 625±10 nm), white (CL-1W-URB, 450-620 nm),and infrared (IR) (730 nm). Each of the LED modules (7×14 cm)consisted of forty LEDs. The LED modules were installed on a control circuit board (30×14 cm) of the bioassay chamber. Thelight exposure conditions, such as wavelength, luminous intensity,and light exposure time, were set by a controller on the bioassaychamber. The response of insects to LEDs were compared withtheir response to a commercial luring lamp (F8T5 BLB: Sankyo-Denki Co. Ltd., Japan), which served as a control in terms of current field applications of light-trapping.

The phototactic responses of the T. vaprariorum adults wereinvestigated using a modified Y-maze phototactic bioassay

chamber which was designed by Oh and Lee (2010) and Jeon etal. (2012). The Y-maze phototactic bioassay chamber was made of an opaque acrylic body (40×40×20 cm) and two transparentacrylic boards which were situated at both ends of the bioassaychamber. The insect entrance holes were located in the center of the bioassay chamber, and were covered with a 60 mesh cloth to

prevent the insects from escaping. The light source was installedon the outside of the Y-maze bioassay chamber at a distance of 25cm. Both ends of the outside chamber were installed withdetachable covers to equip the air cooling system and light source.The interior of the bioassay chamber was maintained at 27±1 o Cand 60±5% relative humidity in darkness.

The phototactic responses of the T. vaprariorum adults wereinvestigated in the Y-maze bioassay chamber according todifferent wavelengths, luminous intensities, and light exposuretimes. Thirty T. vaporariorum adults were collected by insectvacuum sampler, and were then released into the bioassaychamber. To determine the attractiveness of the light sources, thenumbers of greenhouse whiteflies in the light zone (LED light)and dark zone (no LED light) of the bioassay chamber werecounted. The attraction of T. vaporariorum adults to the LEDs atfive luminous intensities (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 lx) wasmeasured. Next, the attraction of T. vaporariorum adults to theLEDs at different light exposure times (30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and

180 min) was investigated in the bioassay chamber at the optimalluminous intensity. Finally, the attraction of T. vaporariorumadults to each of the LEDs was repeatedly measured under

optimal conditions (luminous intensity and light exposure time).All experiments were repeated six times. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS statistical software (version 18.0,SPSS Inc., USA) was used to compare the numbers of T.vaporariorum adults in the phototactic behavior tests. Duncan’smultiple-range test was performed to compare the differencesamong the mean values at p <0.05. Data were expressed as means± standard error of the mean.

The attraction effects of specific wavelengths, luminous intensities,and light exposure times were compared to that of a standardluring lamp (BLB), which served as a positive control. Theattraction rates of T. vaporariorum adults to five LEDs (blue,

green, yellow, red, and white) under various luminous intensitiesare shown in Table 1. On the basis of the 90 min attractive effectsof five LEDs, blue (470±10 nm), green (520±5 nm), yellow(590±5 nm), and red (625±10 nm) LEDs were highly attractive toT. vaporariorum adults at 40 lx, and white (450-620 nm) LEDresulted in the highest attraction rate at 100 lx. Among the fivevisible LEDs, the blue LED had the highest attraction rate(96.8%), followed by green LED (96.4%), red LED (95.4%),white LED (91.3%), and yellow LED (87.8%), under optimalluminous intensities.

The attraction rates of T. vaporariorum adults for varying lightexposure times (30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 min) among theLEDs and BLB were investigated (Table 2). Blue (470±10 nm)and yellow (590±5 nm) LEDs were similar at all light exposuretimes. In addition, blue and yellow LEDs exerted a rapid attractioneffect against T. vaporariorum adults. Therefore, the optimal lightexposure time for blue and yellow LEDs was determined to be 30min. Red (625±10 nm), white (450 −620 nm), and UV (365 nm)LEDs, as well as BLB showed higher attraction against T.vaporariorum adults upon exposure for 60 min, while other LEDsincluding green (520±5 nm) and IR (730 nm) LEDs showed anoptimal light exposure time of 90 min.

Based on the results of the above behavior tests, the attractiveeffects of T. vaporariorum adults to seven LEDs and BLB were

Table 1 Attraction rates of Trialeurodes vaporariorum adults to visible wavelengths under various luminous intensities 1)

Color Wavelength n 2)

Attraction rate (%) 3)

Luminous intensity (lx)

20 40 60 80 100

Blue 470±10 nm 30 85.4 96.8 96.4 91.2 91.5Green 520±5 nm 30 71.8 96.4 96.1 82.8 88.3Yellow 590±5 nm 30 64.5 87.8 78.3 73.5 77.8Red 625±10 nm 30 83.9 95.4 94.6 83.9 84.6White 450-620 nm 30 85.7 83.3 87.2 87.2 91.3

1)Each value is the average of 6 determinations at each luminous intensity after 90 min exposure against 30 adult insects per replication.2) Number of the tested insects.3)Attraction rate (%) is the average percentage of the 30 T. vaporariorum adults attracted to various luminous intensities.

7/26/2019 Jeon 2014h

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jeon-2014h 3/4

J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem (2014) 57(2), 197 − 200 199

evaluated under optimal conditions (Table 3). The blue LED(97.3%) showed the highest attraction rate, followed by greenLED (96.6%), white LED (93.7%), red LED (93.0%), UV LED(90.3%), yellow LED (89.3%), BLB (84.3%), and IR LED(7.7%). Moreover, the blue LED was approximately 1.2 timeshigher than that of a standard luring lamp against T. vaporariorum

adults. These results are consistent with an earlier study in whichthe greenhouse whitefly, T. vaporariorum preferred UV light(Mutwiwa and Tantau, 2005). Previous studies have reported thatsand flies, Phlebotomus papatasi were more attracted to red light,and Culicoides brevitarsis , Euscepes postfasciatus , and Bemisiatabaci was attracted to green LED in a greenhouse (Chu et al.,2003; Hoel et al., 2007). Moreover, Gjullin et al. (1973) demonstratedthat low luminous intensity of red light was more sensitive toCulex tarsalis than to high luminous intensity. These resultsindicate that the phototactic response of the insects depends on themultiple photoreceptors such as specific wavelength, luminousintensity, and light exposure time. Insects are attracted orrepellence to specific wavelengths under the influence of internal

and external factors (Briscoe and Chittka, 2001). However, theresponses of insect to light of varying wavelengths and intensitiesare not well known (Yang et al., 2012). Although many studieshave shown the effectiveness of various light traps, the importantfactors (wavelength, luminous intensity, and light exposure time)in the attraction or repellence of insect pests using LEDs have not

been investigated in detail (Jeon et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2012).Results of the present study suggest that the blue LED (470±10

nm) with 40 lx luminous intensity and an exposure time of 30 minwas the most suitable for protecting greenhouse plants frominfestation by T. vaporariorum adults. Further tests should beconducted to compare the efficiencies of LEDs on a wide range of greenhouse insect pests under field conditions.

Acknowledgments This work was carried out with the support of "Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & TechnologyDevelopment (Project title: Development of integrated pest managementtechniques using natural products and LEDs in the grain storage, Project No.PJ01004501; Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Table 2 Attraction rates of Trialeurodes vaporariorum adults to LEDs and BLB under various light-exposure times (min)

Wavelength (Color) n 1) Luminous

intensity (lx)

Attraction rate (%) 2)

Exposure time (min)

30 60 90 120 150 180

470±10 nm (Blue) 30 40 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4 97.4520±5 nm (Green) 30 40 86.2 93.1 96.6 96.6 96.6 96.6590±5 nm (Yellow) 30 40 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9 88.9625±10 nm (Red) 30 40 81.8 93.9 93.9 93.9 93.9 93.9450-620 nm (White) 30 100 91.3 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.7365 nm (UV) 30 - 3) 85.3 93.2 93.2 93.2 93.2 93.2730 nm (IR) 30 - 4.2 4.2 7.5 7.5 6.6 6.6BLB (Control) 30 - 85.5 89.6 89.6 89.6 89.6 87.7

1) Number of the tested insects.2)Attraction rate (%) is the average percentage of the 30 T. vaporariorum adults attracted by the end of each light-exposure time.3)Each value is the average of 6 determinations per each light-exposure time at 8W, using 30 adult insects per replication.

Table 3 Attraction rates of Trialeurodes vaporariorum adults to LEDs and BLB under optimal conditions

Wavelength(Color) n1) Luminous

intensity (lx) Time (min) Number of adults(Mean ± SEM) 2) Attraction rate

(%)3)

Light side (attraction) No choice

470±10 nm (Blue) 30 40 30 29.2±1.3a 0.8±0.5a 97.3520±5 nm (Green) 30 40 90 28.9±0.7a 1.1±0.8a 96.6590±5 nm (Yellow) 30 40 30 26.8±1.1ab 3.2±0.7b 89.3625±10 nm (Red) 30 40 60 27.9±2.0a 2.1±1.4ab 93.0450-620 nm (White) 30 100 60 28.1±1.2a 1.9±1.1ab 93.7365 nm (UV) 30 - 4) 60 27.1±0.6a 2.9±0.3b 90.3730 nm (IR) 30 - 90 2.3±0.9c 27.7±1.1c 7.7BLB (Control) 30 - 60 25.3±1.7b 4.7±2.1b 84.3

1) Number of the tested insects.2)Means within each column followed by the same letter are not significantly different ( p=0.05).3)Attraction rate (%) is the average percentage of the 30 T. vaporariorum adults attracted under optimal conditions.4)Each value is the average of 6 determinations per each light-exposure time at 8W, using 30 adult insects per replication.

7/26/2019 Jeon 2014h

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jeon-2014h 4/4

200 J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem (2014) 57(2), 197 − 200

References

Antignus Y (2000) Manipulation of wavelength-dependent behavior of

insects: an IPM tool to impede insects and restrict epidemics of insect-borne viruses. Virus Res 71, 213–20.Briscoe AD and Chittka L (2001) The evolution of color vision in insects.

Ann Rev Entomol 46, 471–510.Chen TY, Chu CC, Henneberry TJ, and Umeda K (2004) Monitoring and

trapping insects on poinsettia with yellow sticky card traps equippedwith light-emitting diodes. Hort Technol 14, 337–41.

Cho KS and Lee HS (2012) Visual preference of diamondback month, Plutella xylostella , to Light-emitting Diodes. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem 55 , 681–4.

Chu CC, Jackson CG, Alexander PJ, Karut K, and Henneberry TJ (2003)Plastic cup traps equipped with light-emitting diodes for monitoringadult Bemisia tabaci (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) . J Econ Entomol 96,543–6.

Gjullin CM, Brandl DG, and O’Grady JJ (1973) The effect of colored lightsand other factors on the numbers of Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus , Cx.

tarsalis and Aedes sierrensis entering light traps. Mosq News 33, 67–71.Gu XS, Bu WJ, Xu WH, Bai YC, Liu BM, and Liu TX (2008) Population

suppression of Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) using yellowsticky traps and Eretmocerus nr. rajasthanicus (Hymenoptera:Aphelinidae) on tomato plants in greenhouses. Insect Sci 15, 263–70.

Hoel DF, Butler JF, Fawaz EY, Watany N, El-Hossary SS, and Villinski J(2007) Response of phlebotomine sand flies to light-emitting diode-modified light traps in southern Egypt. J Vec Ecol 32, 302–8.

Inbar M and Gerling D (2008) Plant-mediated interactions between whiteflies,herbivores, and natural enemies. Ann Rev Entomol 53, 431–48.

Jeon JH, Oh MS, Cho KS, and Lee HS (2012) Phototactic response of the riceweevil, Sitophilus oryzae Linnaeus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), to light-emitting diodes. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem 55, 35–9.

Kim MK, Choi KJ, and Lee HS (2003) Fungicidal property of Curcuma

longa L. Rhizome-derived curcumin against phytopathogenic fungi in a greenhouse. J Agric Food Chem 51, 1578–81.

Lee DH, Nyrop JP, and Sanderson JP (2009) Attraction of Trialeurodesvaporariorum and Bemisia argentifolii to eggplant, and its potential as a trap crop for whitefly management on greenhouse poinsettia. Entomol

Exp Appl 133, 105–16.Moreau TL and Isman MB (2011) Trapping whiteflies? A comparison of

greenhouse whitefly ( Trialeurodes vaporariorum ) responses to trap cropsand yellow sticky traps. Pest Manag Sci 67, 408–13.

Mutwiwa UN and Tantau HJ (2005) Suitability of a UV lamp for trapping thegreenhouse whitefly Trialeurodes vaporariorum westwood (Hom:Aleyrodidae). CIGR e-journal 7, 1–11.

Oh MS and Lee HS (2010) Development of phototactic test apparatusequipped with light source for monitoring pests. J Appl Biol Chem 53,248–52.

Tamulaitis G, Duchovskis P, Bliznikas Z, Breivë K, Ulinskaitë R, Brazaitytë Aet al. (2005) High-power light-emitting diode based facility for platcultivation. J Phys D: Appl Phys 38, 3182–7.

Von Elling K, Borgemeister C, Sétamou M, and Poehling HM (2002) Theeffect of NeemAzal-T/S ® , a commercial neem product, on differentdevelopmental stages of the common greenhouse whitefly Trialeurodesvaporariorum Westwood (Hom., Aleyrodidae ). J Appl Entomol 126 , 40– 5.

Yang JY, Kim MG, and Lee HS (2012) Phototactic behavior: attractive effectsof Spodoptera litura (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), tobacco cutworm, tohigh-power light-emitting diodes. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem 55,809–11.

Yang YC, Lim MY, and Lee HS (2003) Emodin isolated from Cassiaobtusifolia (Leguminosae) seed shows larvicidal activity against threemosquito species. J Agric Food Chem 51, 7629–31.

Yeh N and Chung JP (2009) High-brightness LEDs-energy efficient lightingsources and their potential in indoor cultivation. RenewSust Energ Rev13, 2175–80.