4.2 Article

Postharvest methyl bromide fumigation of Japanese plums to control codling moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASIA-PACIFIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 807-815

出版社

KOREAN SOC APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY
DOI: 10.1016/j.aspen.2019.04.011

关键词

Codling moth; Postharvest fumigation; Methyl bromide; Japanese plums; Quarantine treatments

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Agricultural Research Service
  2. California Fresh Fruit Association via a Technical Assistance for Specialty Crop grant from USDA-Foreign Agricultural Service [2016-18]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Postharvest chamber fumigation with 48 mgL(-1) (3.0 lbs./1000 ft(3)) methyl bromide (MB) for 2 h at pulp temperature (T) >= 21 degrees C and chamber load <= 50% is used to control codling moth, Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in fresh nectarine, Prunus persica (L.) var. nucipersica, and French plum, P. domestica (L.), exports from California USA to Japan. Fumigations were conducted to verify that control of C. pomonella is expected following an analogous fumigation of fresh Japanese plums, P. salicina (Lindl.). A kinetic model, based on temporal measurement of MB levels in chamber headspace and how calculated exposures varied across the fumigation trials, showed that fresh Japanese plums and French plums sorb MB at a statistically equivalent rate, which resulted in an MB exposure ca. 20% higher than that observed for fresh nectarines. Importantly, results from commercial-scale fumigations indicate that pallet shrouds do not influence the efficacy of MB toward C. pomonella eggs, as their presence did not affect the rate of MB sorption, evidence that supports the use of pallet shrouds to safeguard against the potential for post-fumigation infestation in this export scenario, and beyond. Results are discussed in the context of graduation toward optimized quarantine fumigation schedules, which will promote more strategic technical and economic Quarantine Pre-shipment (QPS) uses of MB.

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

4.2
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