Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31879864›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2020

Response of Wild Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) to Microbial Volatiles.

Eduardo Bueno, Kyle R Martin, Robert A Raguso, John G Mcmullen, Stephen P Hesler, Greg M Loeb, Angela E Douglas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. HowBiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mutualism has its limits: consequences of asymmetric interactions between a well-defended plant and its herbivorous pollinator.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Article
  15. Mass TrappingInsects · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Liquid Baits withInsects · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eduardo BuenoDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Kyle R MartinSchool of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Robert A RagusoDepartment of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
John G McmullenDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Stephen P HeslerDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 14456, USA.
Greg M LoebDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 14456, USA.
Angela E DouglasDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA. aes326@cornell.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5212-6826
Cornell University · US

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture NYC-19404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The olfactory cues used by various animals to detect and identify food items often include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) produced by food-associated microorganisms. Microbial VOCs have potential as lures to trap animal pests, including insect crop pests. This study investigated microorganisms whose VOCs are attractive to natural populations of the spotted wing drosophila (SWD), an invasive insect pest of ripening fruits. The microorganisms readily cultured from wild SWD and SWD-infested fruits included yeasts, especially Hanseniaspora species, and various bacteria, including Proteobacteria (especially Acetobacteraceae and Enterobacteriaceae) and Actinobacteria. Traps in a raspberry planting that were baited with cultures of Hanseniaspora uvarum, H. opuntiae and the commercial lure Scentry trapped relatively high numbers of both SWD and non-target drosophilids. The VOCs associated with these baits were dominated by ethyl acetate and, for yeasts, other esters. By contrast, Gluconobacter species (Acetobacteraceae), whose VOCs were dominated by acetic acid and acetoin and lacked detectable ethyl acetate, trapped 60-75% fewer SWD but with very high selectivity for SWD. VOCs of two other taxa tested, the yeast Pichia sp. and Curtobacterium sp. (Actinobacteria), trapped very few SWD or other insects. Our demonstration of among-microbial variation in VOCs and their attractiveness to SWD and non-pest insects under field conditions provides the basis for improved design of lures for SWD management. Further research is required to establish how different microbial VOC profiles may function as reliable cues of habitat suitability for fly feeding and oviposition, and how this variation maps onto among-insect species differences in habitat preference.

Indexed as

CuesOlfactory PerceptionActinobacteriaAnimalsDrosophilaFemaleHanseniasporaMaleProteobacteriaRandom AllocationVolatile Organic CompoundsVolatile Organic CompoundsAcetobacteraceaeAttract-and-killDrosophila suzukiiHanseniasporaMicrobial volatilesSpotted wing Drosophila

Identifiers

PMID31879864
OpenAlexW2997952351

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.