↓ Skip to main content

Dose reduction and alternatives to the phenol pheromone in monitoring and management of the grass grub Costelytra zealandica

Overview of attention for article published in Pesticide Science, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dose reduction and alternatives to the phenol pheromone in monitoring and management of the grass grub Costelytra zealandica
Published in
Pesticide Science, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/ps.4599
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aimee R Harper, C Rikard Unelius, Richard J Townsend, David Maxwell Suckling

Abstract

Endemic New Zealand grass grub Costelytra zealandica is a pest of introduced pasture that uses phenol as a sex pheromone. The pheromone could be used to monitor and manage grass grub populations, but the irritating properties and toxicity of phenol for human handlers, as well as the possible ecotoxicological effects, pose obstacles to the deployment of the pheromone. This study aimed to limit the use of phenol by dose-response studies and investigation into alternative attractants and synergists to phenol. No difference in trap catch was seen across the range of 1-100 mg of phenol, while rates below this (0.001-0.1 mg) caused a large drop in catches. Our results indicated that 1 mg loading in lures was enough to indicate beetle presence over one week. 4-Hydroxybenzaldehyde and p-cresol proved unattractive in this study, both as single attractants and as synergists with phenol. Phenyl acetate, phenyl benzoate and diphenyl carbonate all formed phenol under hydrolytic conditions to act as successful propheromones, while phenyl acetate was found to be as attractive as phenol on its own. This study described several ways to reduce or avoid the use of phenol in the field while maintaining lure effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 50%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 25%
Unknown 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 75%
Unknown 1 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Pesticide Science
#2,842
of 3,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,979
of 331,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pesticide Science
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.