| Title |
One more step toward a push-pull strategy combining both a trap crop and plant volatile organic compounds against the cabbage root fly Delia radicum
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Science and Pollution Research, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11356-017-9483-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fabrice Lamy, Sébastien Dugravot, Anne Marie Cortesero, Valérie Chaminade, Vincent Faloya, Denis Poinsot |
| Abstract |
The "push-pull" strategy aims at manipulating insect pest behavior using a combination of attractive and repulsive stimuli using either plants derived volatile organic compounds or insect host plant preferences. In a field experiment using broccoli as a crop, we combined in a "push-pull" context the oviposition deterrent effect of dimethyl disulfide and the attractive effect of a Chinese cabbage strip enhanced with Z-3-hexenyl-acetate. The push component dimethyl disulfide reduced Delia radicum L. (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) oviposition on broccoli by nearly 30%, and applying Z-3-hexenyl-acetate in the pull component of Chinese cabbage increased it by 40%. Moreover, pest infestation was 40% higher in Chinese cabbage compared to broccoli and parasitism by Trybliographa rapae Westwood (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) was four times higher on this trap plant. In addition, lab experiments confirmed that Chinese cabbage is a more suitable host plant than broccoli for the cabbage root fly. Taken together, our results demonstrate the technical possibility of using a push-pull strategy to manipulate the egg-laying behavior of D. radicum in the field. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 56% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Philosophy | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 January 2019.
All research outputs
#15,057,216
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#3,099
of 9,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,091
of 319,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Science and Pollution Research
#62
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
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 319,189 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.