Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38921117›Full record

ArticleInsects2024

Perceptual Effects of Walnut Volatiles on the Codling Moth.

Peixuan Li, Yang Wei, Guoxiang Chen, Adil Sattar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insects, 2024. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  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

4 authors.

Peixuan LiCollege of Horticulture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China.ORCID 0009-0005-7416-829X
Yang WeiCollege of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China.
Guoxiang ChenCollege of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China.
Adil SattarCollege of Forestry and Landscape Architecture, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Urumqi 830052, China.

Funding

Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Science and Technology Department 2021B02004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) of plant hosts allow insect localization through olfactory recognition. In this study, the oviposition behavior of the codling moth was investigated and the VOCs from different walnut organs were extracted and analyzed to systematically study their composition and content differences. The electrophysiological and behavioral responses of the codling moth to walnut VOCs were measured using gas chromatography-electroantennographic detection (GC-EAD) and a four-arm olfactometer to screen the key active contents. The field investigation results indicated that 90.3% of the eggs spawned by the first generation of adult codling moths were adjacent to the walnut fruits. Walnut VOCs are mainly composed of terpenes, aromatics, and alkanes. Twelve VOCs can produce electroantennogenic (EAG) responses in the codling moths. Both adult males and females exhibit concentration dependence, with notable disparities in their EAG response levels. In the olfactory behavioral bioassay, linalool, eucalyptol, and high doses of geranyl acetate showed repellent effects on the codling moths, while myrcene, β-ocimene, nonanal, methyl salicylate, α-farnesene, and heptaldehyde showed the opposite. The relative levels of heptaldehyde, geranyl acetate, nonanal, and methyl salicylate were high in the fruits, which is intimately related to the localization of the walnut fruit by females. These VOCs can influence the oviposition behavior of codling moths but their application in the control of this pest needs to be confirmed and improved through further field experiments.

Indexed as

Cydia pomonellaEAGGC-EADolfactory responseVOCs

Identifiers

PMID38921117
PMCPMC11204062

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.