Suppr超能文献

实验室条件下几种捕捉德国小蠊(蜚蠊目:姬蠊科)陷阱的比较。

Comparison of several traps for catching German cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) under laboratory conditions.

作者信息

Smith L M, Appel A G

机构信息

Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, 301 Funchess Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849-5413, USA.

出版信息

J Econ Entomol. 2008 Feb;101(1):151-8. doi: 10.1603/0022-0493(2008)101[151:costfc]2.0.co;2.

Abstract

German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae), catch by five types of traps and modifications of each, were tested under controlled laboratory conditions. Cockroach catch differed significantly among traps. Lo-line trap caught the greatest number of cockroaches in the test arena for each size class (23% small nymphs, 39% of gravid females, and 60% of other size classes in the experimental arena). Jar traps caught the least number of cockroaches in the test arena for each size class (range, 7-23% of each size class trapped). Modifications of traps also altered catch of cockroaches. Food bait tablets increased catch significantly; however, increases were small (<10%). Size of traps did not affect catch; whole traps or half traps caught the same number of cockroaches. Jar traps were much less effective than sticky traps, catching only half the number of cockroaches as sticky traps. A thin layer of petrolatum was a more effective barrier in jar traps to cockroach escape than powdered Olancha clay. Traps with petrolatum caught about twice as many cockroaches as traps with clay. Trapping of any of six life stages was not significantly affected by catch of any of the other stages. Rather, trap catch of each life stage was dependent on the number of that life stage available in the experimental arenas. In conclusion, of the traps tested, the Lo-line trap was the most sensitive for measuring cockroach catch, whereas the Detector trap (one third of trap) was the most economical trap (greatest sensitivity for lowest cost).

摘要

在可控的实验室条件下,对用五种诱捕器及其每种的改良形式捕获德国小蠊(Blattella germanica (L.),蜚蠊目:姬蠊科)的情况进行了测试。诱捕器之间捕获的蟑螂数量存在显著差异。在测试区域中,Lo-line诱捕器捕获的每个大小等级的蟑螂数量最多(实验区域中小若虫的23%、孕卵雌虫的39%以及其他大小等级的60%)。广口瓶诱捕器在测试区域中捕获的每个大小等级的蟑螂数量最少(每个大小等级捕获数量的范围为7% - 23%)。诱捕器的改良形式也改变了蟑螂的捕获量。食物诱饵片显著增加了捕获量;然而,增加幅度较小(<10%)。诱捕器的大小不影响捕获量;完整的诱捕器或半块诱捕器捕获的蟑螂数量相同。广口瓶诱捕器的效果远不如粘性诱捕器,捕获的蟑螂数量仅为粘性诱捕器的一半。在广口瓶诱捕器中,一层薄薄的凡士林作为阻止蟑螂逃脱的屏障比奥兰查粘土粉更有效。涂有凡士林的诱捕器捕获的蟑螂数量约为涂有粘土的诱捕器的两倍。六个生命阶段中任何一个阶段的捕获情况都不受其他任何阶段捕获情况的显著影响。相反,每个生命阶段的诱捕捕获量取决于实验区域中该生命阶段的个体数量。总之,在所测试的诱捕器中,Lo-line诱捕器在测量蟑螂捕获量方面最灵敏,而Detector诱捕器(诱捕器的三分之一)是最经济的诱捕器(以最低成本实现最高灵敏度)。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验