Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractMikania Micrantha Wilt Virus Alters Insect Vector's Host Preference to Enhance Its Own Spread    Next Abstract"Facile and efficient syntheses of (3Z,6Z,9Z)-3,6,9-nonadecatriene and homologues: pheromone and attractant components of lepidoptera" »

Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao


Title:[Field attraction effects of different trapping methods on Monochamus alternatus]
Author(s):Wang S; Liu Y; Fan M; Miao X; Zhao X; Li Z; Si S; Huang Y;
Address:"Institute of Plant Physiology Ecology, Shanghai Institutes of Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 200032, China. wangsibao@hotmail.com"
Journal Title:Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao
Year:2005
Volume:16
Issue:3
Page Number:505 - 508
DOI:
ISSN/ISBN:1001-9332 (Print) 1001-9332 (Linking)
Abstract:"A comparative study on the field attraction effects of different attractant, trap, lure and controlled-releasing amount on Monochamus alternatus showed that four test attractants had a certain trapping ability to Monochamus alternatus, among which, MA2K05 was the strongest, with a mean capture efficiency of 26.3 individuals each trap and being attractive to other species of Loleoptera and Hemiptera; MA2K13 took the second place, with 21.3 individuals each trap; while MA2K11 was the weakest, with 13.8 individuals each trap. Among the three lures tested, lures C (60 ml plastic cup with 2 of 5 cm round holes on the cover) and B (20 ml specified controlled-releasing plastic bottle) had a comparatively stronger effect, with a capture efficiency of 34.25 and 20.3 individuals each trap, respectively; while lure A (20 ml specified controlled-releasing plastic bottle, the releasing amount being smaller than that of lure B) was the weakest, with 14.7 individuals each trap. Because the attractant volume of lure C was 1.5 times larger than that of lures B and A, and the attractant for lure C was appended every 3-5 d, while that for lures B and A could be used for more than a month with once appended, lure B was the best on the whole. As for the test traps, Xuanzhou trap was superior to imitated Japanese trap, with a trapping efficiency of 36.4 and 9.7 individuals each trap, respectively. The attractiveness of attractants was not significantly enhanced when the dosage was increased from 20 ml to 80 ml, but significantly improved when it was up to 120 ml"
Keywords:"Animals *Diptera Insect Control/*methods Pest Control, Biological *Pheromones;"
Notes:"MedlineWang, Sibao Liu, Yunpeng Fan, Meizhen Miao, Xuexia Zhao, Xieqiu Li, Zengzhi Si, Shengli Huang, Yongping chi English Abstract Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't China 2005/06/10 Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2005 Mar; 16(3):505-8"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 22-11-2024