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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms mediating false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leucotreta (lepidoptera: Tortricidae), mating disruption using point-source pheromone dispensers.Pest management science · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Mating Disruption for Suppression ofInsects · 2025Article
- Mating disruption of the tomato leafminer Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) on greenhouse tomatoes.Crop health · 2024Article
- Pheromone Deployment Strategies for Mating Disruption of a Vineyard Mealybug.Journal of economic entomology · 2021Article
- Latest Developments in Insect Sex Pheromone Research and Its Application in Agricultural Pest Management.Insects · 2021Review
- Biological Control of a Phytosanitary Pest (International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Article
- Airborne Pheromone Quantification in Treated Vineyards with Different Mating Disruption Dispensers againstInsects · 2020Article
- Sex Pheromone Aerosol Devices for Mating Disruption: Challenges for a Brighter Future.Insects · 2019Review
- Recent advances in the understanding of Xanthomonas citri ssp. citri pathogenesis and citrus canker disease management.Molecular plant pathology · 2018Article
- Life history changes inEcology and evolution · 2018Article
- Optimizing the Point-Source Emission Rates and Geometries of Pheromone Mating Disruption Mega-Dispensers.Journal of chemical ecology · 2016Article
- Pheromone Autodetection: Evidence and Implications.Insects · 2016Review
- Article
- Efficacy and mechanisms of communication disruption of the red clover casebearer moth (Coleophora deauratella) with complete and partial pheromone formulations.Journal of chemical ecology · 2014Article
- Estimating insect flight densities from attractive trap catches and flight height distributions.Journal of chemical ecology · 2012Article
- Reduced mating success of female tortricid moths following intense pheromone auto-exposure varies with sophistication of mating system.Journal of chemical ecology · 2012Article
- Mating disruption of Guatemalan potato moth Tecia solanivora by attractive and non-attractive pheromone blends.Journal of chemical ecology · 2012Article
- Small cages with insect couples provide a simple method for a preliminary assessment of mating disruption.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2012Article
- Attraction modulated by spacing of pheromone components and anti-attractants in a bark beetle and a moth.Journal of chemical ecology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
17019623What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.