26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Factors Affecting Disruption of Navel Orangeworm (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Using Aerosol Dispensers

      1 , 2
      Journal of Economic Entomology
      Oxford University Press (OUP)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Mating disruption is used to help manage the navel orangeworm on approximately 200,000 ha of tree nut crops. Aerosol dispensers are the most common formulation, and all formulations use an incomplete pheromone blend consisting solely of (Z11,Z13)-hexadecadienal. Profile analysis (examination of capture and males in pheromone traps as a function of spatial density of dispensers) demonstrated a sharp drop of males captured with a very low density of dispensers, and then an approximately linear relationship between 90 and approaching 100% suppression. This near-linear portion of the profile includes both dispenser densities in which crop protection has been demonstrated, and densities in which it is unlikely. Suppression of males in pheromone traps was lost the next night after dispensers were removed, suggesting that the active ingredient was not persistent in the orchard environment. During most of the summer preharvest period, turning the dispensers off 1 or 2 h before the end of the predawn period of sexual activity provides the same amount of suppression of sexual communication as emission throughout the period of sexual activity. This suggests that encountering the pheromone from the mating disruption dispensers had a persistent effect on males. During the autumn postharvest period, only emission prior to midnight suppressed communication on nights on which the temperature fell below 19°C by midnight. These findings and the analysis will help manufacturers refine their offerings for mating disruption for this important California pest, and buyers of mating disruption to assess cost-effectiveness of competing offerings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          ggplot2

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mating Disruption for the 21st Century: Matching Technology With Mechanism.

            Progress toward proof of the principal cause of insect mating disruption under a particular set of conditions has been hindered by a lack of logical rigor and clean falsifications of possible explanations. Here we make the case that understanding of mating disruption and optimization of particular formulations can be significantly advanced by rigorous application of the principles of strong inference. To that end, we offer a dichotomous key for eight distinct categories of mating disruption and detail criteria and methodologies for differentiating among them. Mechanisms of mating disruption closely align with those established for enzyme inhibition, falling into two major categories-competitive and noncompetitive. Under competitive disruption, no impairments are experienced by males, females, or the signal of females. Therefore, males can respond to females and traps. Competitive disruption is entirely a numbers game where the ratio of dispensers to females and traps is highly consequential and renders the control pest-density-dependent. Under noncompetitive disruption, males, females, or the signal from females are already impaired when sexual activity commences. The control achieved noncompetitively offers the notable advantage of being pest-density-independent. Dosage-response curves are the best way to distinguish competitive from noncompetitive disruption. Purely competitive disruption produces: a smoothly concave curve when untransformed capture data are plotted on the y-axis against density of dispensers on the x-axis; a straight line with positive slope when the inverse of catch is plotted against density of pheromone dispensers; and, a straight line with negative slope when catch is plotted against density of pheromone dispensers × catch. Disruption operating only noncompetitively produces: a straight line with negative slope when untransformed capture data are plotted on the y-axis against density of dispensers on the x-axis; an upturning curve when the inverse of catch is plotted against density of pheromone dispensers; and, a recurving plot when catch is plotted against density of pheromone dispensers x catch. Hybrid profiles are possible when some males within the population begin the activity period already incapacitated, while those not preexposed have the capacity to respond either to traps or pheromone dispensers. Competitive mechanisms include competitive attraction, induced allopatry, and induced arrestment. Noncompetitive mechanisms include desensitization and inhibition, induced allochrony, suppressed calling and mating, camouflage, and sensory imbalance. Examples of the various disruption types within the two major categories and suggested tactics for differentiating among them are offered as seven case studies of the disruption of important pest species using various formulations are analyzed in depth. We point out how economic optimizations may be achieved once the principal and contributory causes of disruption are proven. Hopefully, these insights will pave the way to a broader and more reliable usage of this environmentally friendly pest management tactic.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Economic Entomology
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0022-0493
                1938-291X
                June 2020
                June 06 2020
                January 23 2020
                June 2020
                June 06 2020
                January 23 2020
                : 113
                : 3
                : 1290-1298
                Affiliations
                [1 ]USDA, Agricultural Research Service, San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center, Parlier, CA
                [2 ]Pacific Biocontrol Corporation, Vancouver, WA
                Article
                10.1093/jee/toaa010
                d223e726-c226-4e48-ad11-3aae590a64f8
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content76

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors399