4.6 Article

Impact of Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) on Soybean Yield and Quality Under Field Conditions

期刊

JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC ENTOMOLOGY
卷 115, 期 3, 页码 757-766

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/jee/toac026

关键词

Glycine max; IPM; yield; economic injury level; temperature

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brazil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study conducted in soybean fields in Brazil found that temperature has an impact on the population growth of B. tabaci and crop yield. Higher temperatures promote faster growth and an additional generation of the pest, but have a negative effect on crop yield and quality.
Bemisia tabaci MEAM1 (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) is a key insect pest in soybean fields in Brazil but data are lacking on the relationship between pest abundance and crop yield and quality. Controlled infestation studies were conducted on caged soybean plants in the field over a two year period at two sites in Brazil. Differences in temperature in the two years affected population growth of B. tabaci, reaching 413 nymphs per leaflet in the first year, and 179 the second year even when the average temperature was 3oC higher. Higher temperatures promoted a shorter lifecycle and nearly one more generation. Yield was affected with losses up to 500 kg/ha in 2017/2018 and 1,147 kg/ha in 2018/2019. A decrease in the weight of a thousand grains of 18 and 33 g was observed in the first and second year, respectively. No significant differences were observed in grain germination, but estimated losses in protein content were up to 440 kg/ha at the highest infestation level. Pest density and yield data were used to estimate economic injury levels (EILs). EILs ranged from 2.5 to 25.67 nymphs per leaflet and 0.17-1.79 adults per leaflet over a range of control costs, soybean production values, and control efficacies. These results should provide data useful toward development of pest management decision making tools.

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

4.6
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