Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22350561›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2012

Reduced mating success of female tortricid moths following intense pheromone auto-exposure varies with sophistication of mating system.

Emily H Kuhns, Kirsten Pelz-Stelinski, Lukasz L Stelinski

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Life history changes inEcology and evolution · 2018
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily H KuhnsEntomology and Nematology Department, Citrus Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA.
Kirsten Pelz-Stelinski
Lukasz L Stelinski
Florida Department of Citrus · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mating disruption is a valuable tool for the management of pest lepidopteran species in many agricultural crops. Many studies have addressed the effect of female pheromone on the ability of males to find calling females but, so far, fewer have addressed the effect of pheromone on the mating behavior of females. We hypothesized that mating of female moth species may be adversely affected following sex pheromone auto-exposure, due to abnormal behavioral activity and/or antennal sensitivity. Our results indicate that, for Grapholita molesta and Pandemis pyrusana females, copulation, but not calling, was reduced following pre-exposure to sex pheromone. In contrast, for Cydia pomonella and Choristoneura rosaceana, sex pheromone pre-exposure did not affect either calling or copulation propensity. Adaptation of female moth antennae to their own sex pheromone, following sex pheromone auto-exposure, as measured by electroantennograms, occurred in a species for which identical exposure reduced mating success (G. molesta) and in a species for which such exposure did not affect mating success (C. rosaceana). These results suggest that pre-exposure of female moths of certain species to sex pheromone may further contribute to the success of pheromone-based mating disruption. Therefore, we conclude that, in some species, mating disruption may include a secondary mechanism that affects the mating behavior of female moths, in addition to that of males.

Indexed as

AnimalsCopulationFemaleMaleMothsSex AttractantsSexual Behavior, AnimalSex Attractants

Identifiers

PMID22350561
OpenAlexW2091816759

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.