Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Warning diamondback moths are here to stay

Diamondback moths caused unprecedented damage to brassicas in 2016
Diamondback moths caused unprecedented damage to brassicas in 2016

Brassica producers have been warned diamondback moths are here to stay.

The moths caused unprecedented damage to the UK’s brassica crops in 2016 and researchers believe they are likely to return in even greater numbers in future.

However collaboration between the farming industry and scientists leads levy body AHDB to believe that growers are now better equipped to deal with future outbreaks.

An industry conference heard that baselines for the moths’ susceptibility to chemical control have been identified. Scientists also confirmed diamondbacks were resistant to pyrethroid sprays – which is how most growers dealt with last year’s outbreak.

Dawn Teverson, knowledge exchange manager at AHDB Horticulture, said using pyrethroids was an established response to similar problems,

“So it’s not surprising, but we now know that this may, unfortunately, have exacerbated the problem. Not only were the moths resistant but it may have led to a loss of beneficial biological control insects, such as parasitoid wasps, which could have helped manage pest numbers,” she said.

Ms Teverson added that being able to quickly establish the most effective control methods would provide growers with the best chance of managing outbreaks, while minimising effects on beneficial insects.

Research Scientist Dr Steve Foster said: “We tested a range of different chemical insecticides in bioassays for their effectiveness against the larvae of the moths that we saw in the UK last year. Some compounds were effective but the commonly used pyrethroids were not, due to strong resistance.

“If large numbers of new moths arrive in the UK in future years – a scenario which is becoming more likely due to climate change – they could carry different forms of resistance, so future outbreaks may respond differently to insecticide sprays.”

Dr Foster said the work already carried out meant that effective control measures in future outbreaks could hopefully be identified in weeks, not months.

nnicolson@thecourier.co.uk