4.2 Article

Dynamic seasonal response of Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae) to fruit juice-based lures in fig orchards

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEST MANAGEMENT
卷 69, 期 4, 页码 346-358

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09670874.2021.1918360

关键词

Food-based lures; host-based lures; monitoring; control; Medfly; disposable bottle traps

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of using natural fruit juice-based lures for monitoring Medfly adults at the orchard level in an irrigated valley. The results showed that the effectiveness of attractants varied with seasons, and orange juice had the highest capture rates during spring and autumn. The use of fruit juices as attractants and disposable bottles as traps can minimize the impact on non-target insects and reduce management costs.
Ceratitis capitata is the most serious agricultural pest in Argentinean fruit-growing regions. The use of baited traps for Medfly control is an expanding and increasingly successful integrated management strategy. The high cost of traps and attractants is one of the main limitations for use on either a massive scale or a small-scale control. This study aimed to evaluate the advantages or disadvantages of using natural fruit juice-based lures for Medfly adult monitoring at the orchard level in an irrigated valley. Medfly capture with a standard protein attractant was compared with peach, apple, sweet orange, fig, and grape juices. All attractants were evaluated in 1.5-liter disposable plastic bottles that served as traps. The most relevant finding was the interaction between attractant effectiveness and season. While the standard yeast was the most effective attractant during summer, the highest Medfly caught values recorded during both spring and autumn were achieved with traps baited with orange juice. The use of fruit juices as attractants and disposable bottles as traps can decrease the impact on non-target insects and reduce management costs.

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