4.4 Article

Development and survival of the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) at constant and alternating temperatures

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 221-231

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1603/0046-225X-31.2.221

关键词

Plutella xylostella; development time; survival; temperature; rate function

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Survival and development time from egg to adult emergence of the diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L.), were determined at 19 constant and 14 alternating temperature regimes from 4 to 40degreesC. Plutella xylostella developed successfully front egg to adult emergence at constant temperatures from 8 to 32degreesC. At temperatures from 4 to 6degreesC or from 34 to 40degreesC, partial or complete development of individual stages or instars was possible, with third and fourth instars having the widest temperature limits. The insect developed successfully from egg to adult emergence under alternating regimes including temperatures as low as 4degreesC or as high as 38degreesC. The degree-day model, the logistic equation, and the Wang model were used to describe the relationships between temperature and development rate at both constant and alternating temperatures. The degree-day model described the relationships well from 10 to 30degreesC. The logistic equation and the Wang model fit the data well at temperatures <32degreesC, but only the Wang model described the decline in development rate at temperatures >32degreesC. Under alternating regimes, all three models gave good simulations of development in the mid-temperature range, but only the logistic equation gave close simulations in the low temperature range, and none gave close or consistent simulations in the high temperature range. The distribution of development time was described satisfactorily by a Weibull function. These rate and time distribution functions provide tools for simulating population development of P. xylostella over a wide range of temperature conditions.

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

4.4
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