Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30451413›Full record

ArticleJournal of nematology2018

Responses of

William K Heve, Fahiem E El-Borai, Evan G Johnson, Daniel Carrillo, William T Crow, Larry W Duncan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of nematology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Risk analysis forHeliyon · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

William K HeveCitrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, Florida, 33850.
Fahiem E El-BoraiCitrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, Florida, 33850.
Evan G JohnsonCitrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, Florida, 33850.
Daniel CarrilloTropical Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 18905 SW 280th Street, Homestead, Florida, 33031.
William T CrowDepartment of Entomology and Nematology, University of Florida, 1881 Natural Area Drive, Gainesville, Florida, 32608.
Larry W DuncanCitrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Road, Lake Alfred, Florida, 33850.
University of Florida · USFlorida Department of Citrus · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Caribbean fruit fly, also known as Caribfly or Anastrepha suspensa , is a major tephritid pest of guavas. A virulent entomopathogenic nematode (EPN) species was investigated to suppress the fruit-to-soil stages of Caribflies, which are also attacked by the koinobiont parasitoid Diachasmimorpha longicaudata in south Florida. The main objective was to develop a feasible and cost-effective EPN-application method for integrated pest management (IPM) of Caribfly to improve guava production. Naturally infested guavas were treated with increasing Heterorhabditis bacteriophora infective juvenile (IJ) concentration or rate (0, 25, 50, …, 1,600 IJs cm -2 ) in field trials to measure the optimum IJ rate and then examine sensitivity of producing guavas to inclusion of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora in Caribfly IPM plans. Relative survival of Caribfly in treatments significantly decreased with increasing IJ rate from 0 to 100 IJs cm -2 . Similarly, probability of observing large numbers of parasitoid wasps ( Diachasmimorpha longicaudata ) in EPN treatments significantly declined with increasing IJ rate (0-100 IJs cm -2 ), even though the non-target effects of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora on relative survival of Diachasmimorpha longicaudata could not be determined because of few emerging parasitoid wasps. Optimum suppression (⩾ 60%) of Caribfly was consistently achieved at 100 IJs cm -2 or 17,500 IJs fruit -1 . Profitability analysis showed that Heterorhabditis bacteriophora can be included in Caribfly IPM tactics to produce guavas. Costs of EPNs in Caribfly IPM are minimized if Heterorhabditis bacteriophora is strategically applied by spot treatment of fruit. Repayment of costs of EPN-augmentation by spot treatments appears achievable by recovering 5.71% of the annual yield losses (⩾1,963 kg ha -1 ≈ US$ 8,650 ha -1 ), which are largely due to Caribfly infestation. Hectare-wide EPN-augmentation (or broadcasting) method requires more fruit recovery than the total annual yield losses to repay its high costs. Profitability of guava production in south Florida will not be very sensitive to marginal costs of the spot treatment method, when compared to the field-wide broadcasting of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora .

Indexed as

AmortizationAnastrepha suspensaBiological controlCost minimization strategyDiachasmimorpha longicaudataFeasible Caribfly IPMHeterorhabditis bacteriophoraPsidium guajava.

Identifiers

PMID30451413
PMCPMC6909365
OpenAlexW2909738771

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.