4.2 Article

Impact of nitrogenous-fertilization on the population dynamics and natural control of rice leaffolders (Lep.: Pyralidae)

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PEST MANAGEMENT
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 225-235

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/096708700415571

关键词

Cnaphalocrocis medinalis; Marasmia patnalis; natural enemies; nitrogenous fertilization; population dynamics; rice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of nitrogenous-fertilization on the population dynamics and natural control of rice leaffolders was studied in an irrigated rice area in the Philippines. Nitrogen was applied at three levels (0, 75 and 150 kg N ha(-1)), and its impact on crop growth and yield, arthropod abundance, and rates of leaffolder parasitism and survival was assessed with weekly samples. Rice plants were taller and had a higher leaf nitrogen content with increasing levels of nitrogenous-fertilization, but grain yield was highest at the medium nitrogen level. Herbivores, predators, and parasitoids increased in abundance with nitrogenous-fertilization level. The average density of rice leaffolder larvae at the highest nitrogen level was eight times the density at zero nitrogen level, and the peak percentage injured leaves increased from 5 to 35%. The strong increase in larval density was due to the positive effect of nitrogenous-fertilization on egg recruitment and survival of medium-sized larvae. The percentage parasitism of eggs and larvae was not affected by nitrogenous-fertilization. The increase in survival of medium-sized larvae with nitrogen levels was associated with lower predator to leaffolder ratios. The strong effect of nitrogenous-fertilization in the present small-scale experiment was attributed mainly to allowing the moths an oviposition choice between plots with different application levels of nitrogen. Therefore it is hypothesized that the effect of increasing nitrogenous-fertilization level on leaffolder larval densities will be less pronounced when implemented over a large area.

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