Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17019623›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2006

Differentiation of competitive vs. non-competitive mechanisms mediating disruption of moth sexual communication by point sources of sex pheromone (part I): Theory.

J R Miller, L J Gut, F M de Lame, L L Stelinski

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Biological Control of a Phytosanitary Pest (International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Life history changes inEcology and evolution · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

J R MillerDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. miller20@msu.edu
L J Gut
F M de Lame
L L Stelinski

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study establishes a theoretical framework for differentiating among possible behavioral mechanisms whereby sexual communication of moths is disrupted in crops treated with point sources of pheromone. The major mechanisms recognized in the mating disruption literature fall into two main categories: competitive (competitive attraction = false-plume-following) and non-competitive (camouflage, desensitization, and sensory imbalance). Each disruption mechanism has been precisely defined verbally, and then the distinguishing characteristics of the two categories were defined mathematically. The sets of predictions associated with each category were visualized by graphical plots of mathematical simulations. Profiles of simulated male visitation rates to pheromone-baited traps deployed in pheromone-treated crops were graphed against density of pheromone dispensers by using various types of axes. Key traits of non-competitive attraction are as follows: concave profiles on untransformed axes, with an asymptotic approach to zero catch of male moths in traps; a straight line with positive slope when 1/catch is plotted against dispenser density (Miller-Gut plot); and a straight line with negative slope when catch is plotted against dispenser density * catch (Miller-de Lame plot). Key traits of non-competitive disruption profiles include: an initial linear disruption profile on untransformed axes; a concave Miller-Gut plot; and a recurving Miller-de Lame plot. These differences in profiles provide a basis for distinguishing competitive from non-competitive mechanisms when analyzing disruption profiles from field experiments. Slopes and intercepts of these secondary plots can also reveal both male and female moth densities, if the relative attractiveness of traps, females, and dispensers is known. The absolute value of the slope of the Miller-de Lame plot is a measure of each dispenser's activity (D(a)) for suppressing catch of male moths in traps. An application activity (D(Aa)) for a given dispenser can be calculated by multiplying D(a) by the number of such dispensers applied per hectare of crop.

Indexed as

Animal CommunicationSexual Behavior, AnimalAnimalsFemaleMaleModels, BiologicalMothsSex AttractantsTreesSex Attractants

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.