4.7 Article

Laboratory survival of Drosophila suzukii under simulated winter conditions of the Pacific Northwest and seasonal field trapping in five primary regions of small and stone fruit production in the United States

期刊

PEST MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
卷 67, 期 11, 页码 1368-1374

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ps.2280

关键词

Drosophila suzukii; winter survival; Pacific Northwest; berry pest insect; stone fruit; small fruit

资金

  1. State of Oregon
  2. Michigan State University
  3. Specialty Crops Research Initiative [2010-51181-21167]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Drosophila suzukii was first found in Oregon in August 2009. The threat of this pest to regional small and stone fruit production industries led to investigations on its overwintering capabilities in fruit-growing regions in the Pacific Northwest. Knowledge of its cold tolerance will help in the development of computer models to forecast seasonal population growth and decline. RESULTS: Of 1500 adults or pupae, 22 (1.4%) individuals survived the 84 day experimental chilling period. Most (86%) of the survivors were subjected to 10 degrees C temperature treatments. Survival decreased significantly at lower temperature treatments. Freezing temporarily increased the mortality rate but did not significantly affect overall mortality over the trial period. Flies that emerged from pupae are estimated to survive for up to 103-105 days at 10 degrees C and for shorter periods at lower temperatures. Field trapping in five fruit production areas has demonstrated overwintering survival in California and Oregon, but lower survival is predicted in Eastern Washington and Michigan. CONCLUSION: The experiments reported here indicate that long-term survival of D. suzukii is unlikely at temperatures below 10 degrees C. Field data from five climatic regions indicated extended low initial D. suzukii field presence in 2010 in all regions except California, where field presence was recorded earlier. (C) 2011 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据