首页> 外文OA文献 >Capturing Males of Pestiferous Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Is the Combination of Triple-Lure Wafers and Insecticidal Strips as Effective as Standard Treatments?
【2h】

Capturing Males of Pestiferous Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): Is the Combination of Triple-Lure Wafers and Insecticidal Strips as Effective as Standard Treatments?

机译:捕获pestiferous果蝇的雄性(双翅目:实蝇科):三重诱导薄片和杀虫条的组合是否与标准处理一样有效?

摘要

The detection of invasive tephritid fruit fly pests relies primarily on traps baited with male-specific lures. Three different male lures are typically used, and accordingly three sets of traps are deployed: those baited with liquid methyl eugenol (ME) or liquid cue lure (CL) for different Bactrocera species and those baited with plug-bearing trimedlure (TML) for Ceratitis species. The liquid lures contain the insecticide naled, whereas the trimedlure plugs contain no toxicant. Preparing the liquid solutions and servicing three types of traps requires consid- erable labor, and handling naled (and possibly ME) introduces potential health risks. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Jackson traps baited with a solid dispenser (wafer) containing all three male lures plus a separate insecticidal (DDVP; 2, 2-dichlorovinyl dimethyl phosphate) strip with Jackson traps baited with the standard male lure/toxicant combinations. Trapping was conducted during two 12-week periods in a coffee field on Oahu, Hawaii. The effectiveness of the wafer-baited traps varied among different species. Catch of Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel) males was similar between wafer-baited and liquid ME-baited traps for both sampling periods. Conversely, traps baited with the standard TML plug captured significantly more Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) males than the wafer-baited traps in both sampling periods. The relative effectiveness of the two trap treatments varied between sampling periods for Bactrocera cucurbitae (Coquillett) males. Based on these results, the triple-lure wafer plus separate kill strip does not, at present, appear to be a viable substitute for the male lure/toxicant combinations currently in use.
机译:侵袭性的特应性果蝇害虫的检测主要依靠诱捕具雄性诱饵的诱集装置。通常使用三种不同的雄性诱剂,因此部署了三套诱捕器:对于不同的杆菌属,用液态甲基丁香酚(ME)或液态提示诱饵(CL)诱捕,对于角膜炎,则用塞满塞的三聚体诱饵(TML)诱捕。种类。液体诱剂中含有杀虫剂,而修剪的诱剂中则不含任何毒物。准备液体溶液和对三种类型的疏水阀进行维修需要大量的人工,而处理纳尔(可能是ME)会带来潜在的健康风险。这项研究的目的是比较用包含所有三个雄性诱饵的固体分配器(威化饼)诱饵的杰克逊诱捕器和单独的杀虫剂(DDVP; 2,2-二氯乙烯基二甲基磷酸二甲酯)条带与用标准雄性诱饵的杰克逊诱捕器诱饵的有效性。诱饵/毒物组合。在夏威夷瓦胡岛的一个咖啡田中,在两个12周的时间内进行诱捕。威化饼诱捕器的有效性因物种而异。在两个采样期间,威化诱饵和液态ME诱捕阱中的Bactrocera dorsalis(Hendel)雄性捕获相似。相反,在两个采样周期中,使用标准TML塞诱饵的诱捕器捕获的人头角膜性角膜炎(Wiedemann)雄性比用晶片诱饵诱捕的捕获器明显多。两种诱捕剂处理的相对有效性在葫芦小实蝇(Coquillett)雄性的采样期之间有所不同。基于这些结果,三诱剂威化饼加单独的杀伤带目前似乎不能替代当前使用的雄性诱剂/毒物组合。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号