ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2010
Effect of pheromone dispenser density on timing and duration of approaches by peachtree borer.
Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The timing and duration of approaches by male peachtree borer Synanthedon exitiosa Say (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) to commercial pheromone dispensers placed singly or at high density in peach orchards was determined by using field-deployed video cameras and digital video recorders. Cameras were trained on one dispenser, and one standard lure was placed in a peach orchard, and on 12 dispensers in a separate orchard where dispensers for mating disruption had been placed at 371 per hectare. Male moth approaches were video recorded at the peak of peachtree borer annual flight, from 13 to 18 August 2009. The mean approach timing (h:min:sec±SD) during the study period was 11:33:12 ± 00:46:43, 11:43:52 ± 00:45:58, and 11:41:21 ± 00:45:54 AM with the single dispenser, high-density dispensers, and lure, respectively. Day-to-day variability in approach timings suggested that there were no biologically significant differences among treatments. The frequency distribution of approach durations varied among treatments, as the high-density dispensers had mostly short approaches, while the distribution of approaches to the single dispenser and lure was wider. The median (interquartile range) approach duration was 3 (2-4), 1 (1-2), and 4 (2-6) seconds with the single dispenser, high-density dispensers, and lure, respectively. The relative rank of median approach durations was constant throughout the period, indicating differences among treatments. This study showed that the presence of pheromone dispensers for mating disruption did not cause an advancement of peachtree borer diel rhythm of response. Shorter approaches to dispensers placed at high density than singly suggest that dispenser retentiveness is not constant with peachtree borer, which may bias estimates of disruption activity as a function of dispenser density.
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.