Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28131989›Full record

ArticleJournal of economic entomology2017

Maximizing Information Yield From Pheromone-Baited Monitoring Traps: Estimating Plume Reach, Trapping Radius, and Absolute Density of Cydia pomonella (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Michigan Apple.

C G Adams, J H Schenker, P S McGhee, L J Gut, J F Brunner, J R Miller

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of economic entomology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Mass TrappingInsects · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Will Peri-UrbanInsects · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C G AdamsDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 (adamsch@msu.edu; mcgheeps@gmail.com; gut@msu.edu; miller20@msu.edu).
J H SchenkerDepartment of Mathematics, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 (jeffrey@math.msu.edu).
P S McGheeDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 (adamsch@msu.edu; mcgheeps@gmail.com; gut@msu.edu; miller20@msu.edu).
L J GutDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 (adamsch@msu.edu; mcgheeps@gmail.com; gut@msu.edu; miller20@msu.edu).
J F BrunnerDepartment of Entomology, Tree Fruit Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Wenatchee, WA 98801 (jfb@wsu.edu).
J R MillerDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 (adamsch@msu.edu; mcgheeps@gmail.com; gut@msu.edu; miller20@msu.edu).
Michigan State University · USWashington Tree Fruit Research Commission · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Novel methods of data analysis were used to interpret codling moth (Cydia pomonella) catch data from central-trap, multiple-release experiments using a standard codlemone-baited monitoring trap in commercial apple orchards not under mating disruption. The main objectives were to determine consistency and reliability for measures of: 1) the trapping radius, composed of the trap's behaviorally effective plume reach and the maximum dispersive distance of a responder population; and 2) the proportion of the population present in the trapping area that is caught. Two moth release designs were used: 1) moth releases at regular intervals in the four cardinal directions, and 2) evenly distributed moth releases across entire approximately 18-ha orchard blocks using both high and low codling moth populations. For both release designs, at high populations, the mean proportion catch was 0.01, and for the even release of low populations, that value was approximately 0.02. Mean maximum dispersive distance for released codling moth males was approximately 260 m. Behaviorally effective plume reach for the standard codling moth trap was < 5 m, and total trapping area for a single trap was approximately 21 ha. These estimates were consistent across three growing seasons and are supported by extraordinarily high replication for this type of field experiment. Knowing the trapping area and mean proportion caught, catch number per single monitoring trap can be translated into absolute pest density using the equation: males per trapping area = catch per trapping area/proportion caught. Thus, catches of 1, 3, 10, and 30 codling moth males per trap translate to approximately 5, 14, 48, and 143 males/ha, respectively, and reflect equal densities of females, because the codling moth sex ratio is 1:1. Combined with life-table data on codling moth fecundity and mortality, along with data on crop yield per trapping area, this fundamental knowledge of how to interpret catch numbers will enable pest managers to make considerably more precise projections of damage and therefore more precise and reliable decisions on whether insecticide applications are justified. The principles and methods established here for estimating absolute codling moth density may be broadly applicable to pests generally and thereby could set a new standard for integrated pest management decisions based on trapping.

Indexed as

ChemotaxisPest Control, BiologicalAnimalsFemaleMaleMalusMichiganMothsPheromonesPopulation DensityReproducibility of ResultsSex Attractantsinsect attractantsPheromonesSex Attractantseconomic thresholdfindabilityrandom walksampling areatrapping area

Identifiers

PMID28131989
PMCPMC5387981
OpenAlexW2580575395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.