ArticleExperimental & applied acarology2017
Tolerance of the eriophyid mite Aceria salsolae to UV-A light and implications for biological control of Russian thistle.
Article in Experimental & applied acarology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Aceria salsolae (Acari: Eriophyidae) is being evaluated as a candidate biological control agent of Russian thistle (Salsola tragus, Chenopodiaceae), a major invasive weed of rangelands and dryland crops in the western USA. Prior laboratory host range testing under artificial lighting indicated reproduction on non-native Bassia hyssopifolia and on a native plant, Suaeda calceoliformis. However, in field tests in the native range, mite populations released on these 'nontarget' plants remained low. We hypothesized that UV-A light, which can affect behavior of tetranychid mites, would affect populations of the eriophyid A. salsolae differently on the target and nontarget plant species, decreasing the mite's realized host range. Plants were infested with A. salsolae under lamps that emitted UV-A, along with broad-spectrum lighting, and the size of mite populations and plant growth was compared to infested plants exposed only to broad-spectrum light. Russian thistle supported 3- to 55-fold larger mite populations than nontarget plants regardless of UV-A treatment. UV-A exposure did not affect mite populations on Russian thistle or S. calceoliformis, whereas it increased populations 7-fold on B. hyssopifolia. Main stems on nontarget plants grew 2- to 6-fold faster than did Russian thistle under either light treatment. The two nontarget plants attained greater volume under the control light regime than UV-A, but Russian thistle was unaffected. Although Russian thistle was always the superior host, addition of UV-A light to the artificial lighting regime did not reduce the ability of A. salsolae to reproduce on the two nontarget species, suggesting that UV-B or other environmental factors may be more important in limiting mite populations in the field.
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.