ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2008
Mechanisms of pheromone communication disruption in Choristoneura rosaceana exposed to microencapsulated (Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate formulated with and without horticultural oil.
Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pheromone Deployment Strategies for Mating Disruption of a Vineyard Mealybug.Journal of economic entomology · 2021Article
- Article
- Persistence of the Gypsy Moth Pheromone, Disparlure, in the Environment in Various Climates.Insects · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flight tunnel and electrophysiological assays with male Choristoneura rosaceana Harris (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) were conducted to investigate the non-competitive mechanisms of communication disruption caused by microencapsulated (MEC) (Z)-11-tetradecenyl acetate (3M MEC-LR) formulated with and without horticultural oil (Purespray Green). Male C. rosaceana were exposed for 1 h by resting on metal surfaces sprayed with either water, 2% oil in water, MEC-LR in water, or MEC-LR + 2% oil in water. In one experiment, sprayed surfaces were allowed to age up to 47 days in a laboratory fume hood prior to moth exposure to examine the effect of ageing on the disruptive efficacy of the formulations. In flight tunnel assays with calling females, males exposed to MEC or MEC + oil treatments for 1 h were significantly disrupted up to 1 h after exposure, and both treatments were effective for 47 days. Electroantennograms revealed no reduction in antennal sensitivity when measured 75 s after a 1-h exposure. Collectively, these results support habituation as a key mechanism of communication disruption for C. rosaceana exposed to the MEC formulations tested here. Male proximity to the pheromone-treated surfaces appears to be important in maintaining a disruptive effect as MEC treatments age and pheromone release rates decline. The addition of 2% oil increased the number of microcapsules deposited on sprayed surfaces and caused a moderate but significant increase in the disruptive effect of the MEC formulation. A better understanding of the mechanisms that underlie disruption by MEC formulations, and how an adjuvant like horticultural oil may enhance these mechanisms, may lead to improvements in this technology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.