ArticleJournal of economic entomology2024
Field evaluation of female- and male-targeted traps for Ceratitis capitata (Diptera: Tephritidae).
Article in Journal of economic entomology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mediterranean fruit fly (Medfly) Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann) (Diptera: Tephritidae) is a globally significant economic pest for which lure based trapping can be used to monitor established populations and for surveillance. Either female- or male-targeted traps can be used; however, recommendations on which to apply are inconsistent and many programs rely on male-targeted traps. Here, we compare the performance of male-targeted traps (Lynfield Trap with Trimedlure) and female-targeted traps (Biotrap Globe trap with the 3-component lure-TMA Plus) in apple orchards in south-west Western Australia over 2 years (September 2019 to September 2021). Male-targeted traps caught more Medflies overall than female-targeted traps, although the difference was minor. However, female-targeted traps were better at attracting Medfly early in the season when populations were small; and were more likely to capture at least one fly when their paired male-targeted trap caught none. Conversely, male-targeted traps were more likely to capture Medflies late in the season and were more likely to catch high numbers of Medflies. Consequently, female-targeted traps may be better at detecting Medfly early in the season, and male-targeted traps may be better at detecting Medfly abundance late in the season, at least in apple orchards. Our results suggest that either or both trap-types could be used for monitoring Medfly populations, with the optimal solution being dependent on the intended application.
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.