BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
AUSTRALIA LEADS THE WAY IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE
DIAMONDBACK MOTH
Richard Vickers from CSIRO Entomology, and Nancy Endersby and Peter Ridland from Institute for
Horticultural Development, Victoria (all from Australia) describe the latest international efforts in the
fight against a major horticultural insect pest
Introduction
The diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella, has
become a major insect pest both in Australia and around the
world. It can have devastating effects on Brassica vegetable
crops such as cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprouts
and Asian leafy brassicas. It can also cause significant damage
in canola and forage turnips.
Biology
The moth lays pale yellow eggs, 0.5 mm long, both singly
and in clusters on the stems and both sides of the leaves.
One female moth may lay more than 150 eggs during her
lifetime. The larvae are grey-green with a dark head in the
first three instars and green with a greenish brown head in
the final instar. The first and some second instar larvae
tunnel inside the leaf, while subsequent instars feed on the
underside of leaves or tunnel into the plant. The larvae,
which grow to approximately 12 mm in length, may drop to
the ground on silken threads if disturbed. They can also
wriggle backwards rapidly across the leaf surface. Pupation
occurs in an open-mesh cocoon. The adult is a small moth
about 10–12 mm long, the male being dark brown with a
pattern of three consecutive white diamonds on its back,
and the female moth tan-coloured with less distinct diamond
patterns than those of the male. Adults are active at dusk
and throughout the night, but if plants are disturbed during
the day the moths will be seen flying from their resting
places. The life cycle of DBM is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. The life cycle of the diamondback moth (Plutella
xylostella).
DOI: 10.1039/b108598k
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2001
The larvae eat many small holes in the leaves of the host
plants, often leaving the leaf epidermis intact, making a
‘feeding window’. Most damage is caused by the larvae
tunnelling into the heads of plants such as cabbage and
Brussels sprouts. They also cause contamination of produce
by pupating inside broccoli florets and cauliflower curds.
Seedlings of cruciferous forage crops and canola may be
destroyed by this pest and severe defoliation or pod grazing
may reduce canola yield.
Insecticide resistance
In Australia, resistance to synthetic pyrethroid insecticides
has been identified in DBM populations from vegetable
growing areas in all states and resistance to organophos-
phate insecticides has been identified in some states.
AIRAC (AVCARE’s Insecticide Resistance Action
Committee), in consultation with researchers, devised a two-
window insecticide resistance management strategy for
DBM in 1997. By late 1998, fipronil and chlorfenapyr had
both been registered for control of DBM and so the two-
window strategy was launched to growers around Australia.
The strategy is reviewed regularly and is updated as new
products become registered. Four products are currently
partitioned into the two-window strategy. In southern
Australia (NSW, VIC, TAS and SA), Secure® (chlorfenapyr)
and Success® (spinosad) may be used from 1st September to
31st January, whereas Regent® (fipronil) and Proclaim®
(emamectin benzoate) may be used from 1st February to
31st August.
The national insecticide resistance monitoring program
was established in 1999. The program involves testing of
field populations of DBM from each state with a variety of
new and long-established insecticides. The data collected
provide valuable insights to all facets of the industry on the
progress of the insecticide resistance management strategy.
Biological control
Several species of wasp parasitoid were released in Australia
in an attempt to biologically control this pest during the
1940s and 1950s and although some species (especially the
ichneumonid wasps, Diadegma semiclausum and
Diadromus collaris) are still present today, control has not
been achieved.
CSIRO Entomology has embarked on a biological attack
against this pest using the insect’s own sex pheromone as an
agent of destruction.
Pe s t i c i d e O u t l o o k – O c t o b e r 2 0 0 1 185
 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
NATIONAL DIAMONDBACK MOTH
PROJECT
Promotion of crop scouting to the Australian Brassica vegetable
industry is a major initiative of the National Diamondback Moth
project funded by Horticulture Australia Ltd. In each state, project
members provide training days and ongoing support to crop scouts.
Information gained by crop scouting is essential for making strategic
pest control decisions and is fundamental to implementation of IPM.
Other aspects of strategic chemical use such as setting up spray rigs
to achieve good coverage, using label rates and avoiding tank mixes
of multiple insecticides, have been promoted. Reducing pest
pressure through non-chemical management practices is also
recommended and includes using clean seedlings, destruction of
crop residues, growing vigorous plants to resist pests and diseases
and using crop breaks to reduce DBM numbers and levels of
insecticide resistance.
Further projects aimed at improving IPM include investigations of:
● Susceptibility of DBM populations from all states to the newly-
registered insecticides (national insecticide resistance monitoring
program for DBM)
● DBM movement between vegetable crops and other host plants.
● Enhancement of natural enemies of DBM by providing refuge
areas and nectar sources
● Innovative control tactics (dissemination of biocontrol agents on
seedlings and choosing less susceptible cultivars)
The national project is led by Greg Baker of the South Australian
Research and Development Institute (baker.greg@saugov.sa.gov.au).
Project members come from the following organisations: South
Australian Research & Development Institute; DNRE, Institute for
Horticultural Development, Knoxfield, Victoria; NSW Agriculture;
University of Adelaide; Department of Primary Industries, Water
and Environment, Tasmania; Department of Agriculture, Western
Australia; and Queensland Department of Primary Industries.
Autodissemination involves the use of pheromone baits
(sex attractants) to lure males into inoculation chambers
containing a pathogen, such as a fungus. Here the males
become infected and, on returning to the crop, disseminate
the pathogen amongst their own population. In other words
they disseminate the control weapon automatically. In the
case of DBM the control weapon is a naturally occurring
fungal pathogen, Zoophthora radicans.
The concept has been tested during various laboratory
and small-scale field trials but until recently has not been
tested on a scale large enough to demonstrate that it has real
potential as a control technique.
With this in mind, Dr Richard Vickers, from CSIRO
Entomology, collaborated with Dr Judith Pell, from the
Institute of Arable Crops Research (IARC) at Rothamsted
(UK), to conduct proof-of-concept trials. Their aim was to
determine whether the fungus could be artificially
introduced to a DBM-infested broccoli crop early in the
season by releasing laboratory-infected adults. This was seen
as an essential pre-cursor to trials in which the fungus would
be dispersed via pheromone-baited inoculation chambers,
the auto-dissemination technique.
The trials proved highly successful. Evidence of infection
having spread to the wild population was apparent two days
after release of the adults and within five weeks the
186 Pe s t i c i d e O u t l o o k – O c t o b e r 2 0 0 1
mortality rate amongst all larvae and pupae was 80%.
Amongst mature larvae it was even higher at 93%.
During the trials the scientists were also able to
demonstrate that the fungus was transmitted aerially as well
as by direct contact, which augers well for its transmission
in low density populations where direct contact of infected
and healthy individuals would be minimal.
Trials to demonstrate that pheromone-baited inoculation
chambers are an effective means of initiating disease are
now required. If such trials prove successful then the effect
of DBM population density on the development of the
fungal disease, the design of efficient inoculation chambers
and a cost-effective and practical means of producing and
storing the fungus will need to be investigated. The issue of
low DBM population densities at the beginning of the
growing season influencing transmission rates may not be
critical as most of the fungal infections appear to be aerially
transmitted, with little reliance upon healthy larvae
physically contacting infected individuals. In addition,
where low-density populations are involved, a greater
proportion of adult males will be attracted to inoculation
stations by the pheromone baits, thus helping to promote
fungal development.
Outlook
Further research will be necessary before autodissemination
can be added to the suite of tools needed by growers to
combat this devastating pest.
CESAR DIAMONDBACK MOTH
PROJECTS
CESAR (Centre for Environmental Stress and Adaptation Research),
has two projects in progress looking at molecular genetic aspects of
diamondback moth (DBM). One project based at Monash University
aims to characterise molecular genetic markers, such as microsatel-
lites, for investigation of population structure and moth movement.
Markers will be used to identify genetic differences between and
within geographically diverse Australian populations of DBM. They
will help to determine whether specific moth populations are
isolated or connected to others through dispersal. The information
gained will enhance our understanding of pest population dynamics
and thereby improve management decisions aimed at minimising the
development and spread of insecticide resistance.
The second project is based at the University of Melbourne and is
investigating the molecular basis of resistance to the bacterial
insecticide, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in DBM. The project aims to
identify and map the genes conferring resistance to Bt as well as
examining the extent and potential rate of spread of Bt resistance
throughout Australian populations of DBM. Knowledge of the
resistance mechanisms and underlying genes may allow resistance
development to be predicted and minimised as well as giving an
opportunity to control the spread of resistance and reduce its
effects.
CESAR is led by Professor Ary Hoffmann of La Trobe University
in Victoria. The Centre aims to understand the main issues and
mechanisms involved with adaptation of organisms to stress using
experimental model systems and to disseminate this information to
industry and the community.
 BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
Further reading
Talekar, N. S.; Shelton, A. M. (1993). Biology, ecology and Richard Vickers has been working with CSIRO on insect pests of
management of the diamondback moth. Annual Review of horticulture for over 30 years. His major focus has been on the
Entomology, 38, 275–301 (can be viewed on the web at application of sex pheromones for controlling and/or monitoring
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/dbm/ under Literature pest populations and he was closely involved with the research that
Review Article) lead to the development of mating disruption systems for oriental
fruit moth, codling moth and a clearwing borer of persimmons. All
three systems are now commercially available. His current
Websites involvement in developing autodissemination as a control technique
http://www.sardi.sa.gov.au/crops/entomolo/dbmipm/ adds an exciting new dimension to his pheromone research.
aus_dbm_ipm.html
http://www.ento.csiro.au/research/pestmgmt/IPMModel-
Peter Ridland has been developing pest management strategies for a
lingNetwork/Diamondback_Moth.htm range of agricultural and horticultural crops in Victoria since 1994.
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/dbm/ Since 1993, he has worked with two horticultural industries with
http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/agvic/ihd/projects/dbm.htm serious pest problems due to insecticide resistance, namely
diamondback moth in brassica crops and Helicoverpa armigera in
Forthcoming conference sweet corn. He currently leads an ACIAR-funded project working
4th International Workshop on the Management of on the leafminer, Liriomyza huidobrensis, in Indonesia.
Diamondback Moth and Other Crucifer Pests
26–29 November 2001, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Nancy Endersby has worked on Integrated Pest Management in
Australia. For further details see http://www.conferences. brassica crops for 12 years, training crop scouts and monitoring
unimelb.edu.au/moth/ diamondback moth populations for insecticide resistance. She is
currently working on a CESAR PhD project on the molecular
For further information contact genetic structure of Australian populations of diamondback moth,
richard.vickers@brs.ento.csiro.au supervised by Steve McKechnie at Monash University.
nancy.endersby@nre.vic.gov.au

FEEDBACK
Paterson’s curse
The taxonomic name for Paterson’s curse mentioned in the April issue (Pesticide Outlook, 2001, 12(2), 49) should have been
quoted as Echium plantagineum. Wherever known we publish Latin taxonomic names to help international readers in the
identification of organisms. Paterson’s curse allegedly received its common name from the Paterson family who lived near
Albury, New South Wales, who brought the seed from Europe so they could grow it in their garden.

FRAC
In our August 2001 issue (Pesticide Outlook, 2001, 12(4), 165), the organisation FRAC should have been identified as the
Fungicide Resistance Action Committee, and not as Fungicide Resistance Action Group.

Monarch butterflies
Since the publication of the article in Pesticide Outlook by James McLaren (Pesticide Outlook, 2001, 12(4), 136) on monarch
butterflies, a new study by Mark Sears of the Department of Environmental Biology at the University of Guelph in Canada was
discussed at the ACS National Meeting at Chicago in August. Sears and his team looked at how far pollen travelled in a corn
field, if monarch butterflies were exposed to it and how much of it the larvae typically ate. The research, funded by the
Canadian government, took place on corn fields in Canada, Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota between 1999 and 2000. They saw
no adverse effects except when larvae ate about 4000 pollen grains. However, because there is an average of only 120 pollen
grains per cm2 of a milkweed leaf, it was concluded that it is highly unlikely that larvae are going to be exposed to that much
pollen to cause a measurable effect.

Pe s t i c i d e O u t l o o k – O c t o b e r 2 0 0 1 187