MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7045257533

Alternative integrated pest management methods for controlling Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae).

2023· dissertation· en· W7045257533 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueK-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University) · 2023
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueInsect Pest Control Strategies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTyrophagus putrescentiaeIntegrated pest managementPopulationFumigationPest controlPEST analysisChemical control
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Acaridae), commonly known as the mold mite, cheese mite and ham mite, is one of the most important pests of dry-cured hams. Methyl bromide is the most effective fumigant that has been used to control ham mites. Methyl bromide is now banned for most food uses and is being phased out of use in many countries in accord with the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer of the earth’s atmosphere. This work is part of a long-term effort to find alternatives to methyl bromide for use in controlling ham mites. In an integrated pest management program, different tools play a role in the successful control of insect pests. Hence, effective, feasible and economically friendly integrated pest management (IPM) tools are needed to help in the control of these ham mites in the dry-cured ham industry. Work for this dissertation is divided into four independent sections by chapter, as described below. Plant essential oils and food-safe compounds were evaluated as repellents for their effectiveness at controlling mites. Experiments to assess the repellency to orientation, oviposition, and population growth of mites on 5 mm³ and 25 mm³ pieces of aged country hams were conducted. Test compounds at different concentrations were dissolved in required solvents and compared to the solvent control. Results indicated that nootkatone and a blend of C8, C9 and C10 straight-chain hydrocarbons had repellency indices of (RI) of 85.6% and 82.3%. Geraniol had the highest RI of 96.3% at 0.04 mg/cm². Ham pieces dipped in C8910 and nootkatone at 150 ppm each had RIs of 89.3% and 82.8%, respectively. In general, as the concentrations of test compounds increased, the numbers of eggs that were laid on these treated ham cubes decreased after the 48h exposure time. In the second study, about fifteen commercially available acaricides were screened as surface applications, and four chemicals were effective against mites. The persistence of these four chemicals over time was further assessed over eight-week periods by applying the recommended rate to three different surfaces: metal, concrete and wood. Results indicated that acequinocyl and amitraz were very persistent and effective at killing mites throughout the experiment period even after the sixth to eighth week aging of the sprayed surfaces, hence suggesting good efficacy for commercial use. Traditionally, the use of residual pesticides and fumigants have been the primary way to control stored product pests, including ham mites. Since the use of these products are being minimized to embrace more environmentally friendly and humanly safe alternatives, the objective of this third experiment was to evaluate different physical barriers to exclude ham mites in a simulated ham-aging facility. The physical treatments included both liquid and sticky barriers. The liquid treatments were water, soapy water, vegetable oil and mineral oil whereas the dry sticky treatment were petroleum jelly and a sticky coating used in insect traps. These experiments indicated that physical barrier treatments can significantly reduce the number of ham mites that may walk up from the floor to infest dry cured hams while they were hanging on racks above the floor. However, barrier methods used for exclusion alone cannot eradicate ham mites in an aging room. Hence, it can certainly be used in conjunction with other pest management tools for successful protection of dry-cured hams.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Autre devis · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,926
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,066
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeAutre devis
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueK-State Research Exchange (Kansas State University)Même sujetInsect Pest Control StrategiesTravaux en français237 207