| |
|
|
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
| 1. |  | INACIO, C. de T.; MORAES, A. da S. de; CAMPOS, D. V. B. de; VENEU, D. M.; RECH, I.; LEAL, M. A. de A. Precipitação de estruvita em lixiviado de compostagem para uso como fertilizante. Revista Virtual de Química, v. 14, n. 5, p. 870-876, 2022.| Biblioteca(s): Embrapa Agrobiologia; Embrapa Solos. |
|    |
| Registros recuperados : 1 | |
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Algodão. |
|
Data corrente: |
20/09/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
20/09/2022 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Artigo em Periódico Indexado |
|
Autoria: |
OLIVEIRA, A. A. S.; ARAÚJO, T. A.; SHOWLER, A. T.; ARAÚJO, A. C. A.; ALMEIDA, I. S.; AGUIAR, R. S. A.; MIRANDA, J. E.; FERNANDES, F. L.; BASTOS, C. S. |
|
Afiliação: |
ANDRÉA A. S. OLIVEIRA, UnB; TAMÍRIS A. ARAÚJO, UFSCar; ALLAN T. SHOWLER, USDA; ANA C. A. ARAÚJO, UnB; IGOR S. ALMEIDA, UnB; RENATA S. A. AGUIAR, UnB; JOSÉ EDNILSON MIRANDA, CNPA; FLÁVIO L. FERNANDES, UFV; CRISTINA S. BASTOS, UnB. |
|
Título: |
Spatio-temporal distribution of Anthonomus grandis grandis Boh. in tropical cotton fields. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Pest Management Science, v. 78, n. 3, p. 2492-2501, 2022. |
|
ISSN: |
1526-498x |
|
DOI: |
10.1002/ps.6880 |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
The boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is considered to be the most harmful cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., pest throughout subtropical, and tropical regions of the western hemisphere.1,2 Boll weevil damages cotton by feeding upon and laying eggs inside its reproductive structures, where hatched larvae feed and pupate,3,4 causing abscission or reduction of fiber quality,3,5,6 and economic losses of up to US$74 million per year.7 Boll weevil chemical control interventions are based on economic thresholds obtained by sampling the plants and for adult boll weevils captured in pheromone-baited traps.3,8,9 In order to develop an accurate monitoring and management program, estimates of population density are essential.10,11 Biotic and abiotic factors affect dynamics and within-field distribution (aggregated, random or uniform patterns) of insect populations.10,12 Knowing a pest's distribution within a field can help to: (1) develop site-specific sampling and control efforts; (2) predict pest movement; (3) improve insecticide-resistance management; (4) conserve biological control agents by precision targeting sprays for the infested areas; and (5) reduce the economic, social and environmental costs associated with pest control.10,11,13 The spatial distribution of boll weevils has been investigated using mean?variance relationships4,14 without considering within-field spatial density distribution, or has been based on pheromone-baited trap captures.15 The most accurate approach is the use of geostatistics because the position of the samples in space is accounted for.16 Recent work reported that geostatistics is of particular interest for pest management because it allows inferences about the minimum inter-sample distance needed to obtain independent estimations and indicates patterns of distribution and colonization of an organism, all of which are crucial for the development of effective sampling programs.11,13 The purpose of this study was to investigate the spatial dynamics of A. grandis grandis on cotton by determining within-field distribution of adults and infested reproductive structures (having feeding and/or oviposition punctures). MenosThe boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is considered to be the most harmful cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., pest throughout subtropical, and tropical regions of the western hemisphere.1,2 Boll weevil damages cotton by feeding upon and laying eggs inside its reproductive structures, where hatched larvae feed and pupate,3,4 causing abscission or reduction of fiber quality,3,5,6 and economic losses of up to US$74 million per year.7 Boll weevil chemical control interventions are based on economic thresholds obtained by sampling the plants and for adult boll weevils captured in pheromone-baited traps.3,8,9 In order to develop an accurate monitoring and management program, estimates of population density are essential.10,11 Biotic and abiotic factors affect dynamics and within-field distribution (aggregated, random or uniform patterns) of insect populations.10,12 Knowing a pest's distribution within a field can help to: (1) develop site-specific sampling and control efforts; (2) predict pest movement; (3) improve insecticide-resistance management; (4) conserve biological control agents by precision targeting sprays for the infested areas; and (5) reduce the economic, social and environmental costs associated with pest control.10,11,13 The spatial distribution of boll weevils has been investigated using mean?variance relationships4,14 without considering within-field spatial density distribution, or has been based on pheromone-baited trap ca... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Brócolis; Hortaliças; Sunflower; Sweet potato; Tomato. |
|
Thesagro: |
Algodão; Alho; Anthonomus Grandis; Batata Doce; Bicudo; Cenoura; Clima Tropical; Couve; Entomologia; Estatística Agrícola; Girassol; Gossypium Hirsutum; Mandioca; Peste; Praga de Planta; Repolho; Tomate. |
|
Thesaurus NAL: |
Anthonomus grandis grandis; Broccoli; Cabbage; Carrots; Cassava; Cotton; Entomology; Garlic; Geostatistics; Plant pests; Sunflower seed products; Sunflower seed protein; Tropical agriculture; Vegetables. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
F Plantas e Produtos de Origem Vegetal |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/doc/1146623/1/SPATIO-TEMPORAL-DISTRIBUTION-ANTHONOMUS-1.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 03935naa a2200673 a 4500
001 2146623
005 2022-09-20
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
022 $a1526-498x
024 7 $a10.1002/ps.6880$2DOI
100 1 $aOLIVEIRA, A. A. S.
245 $aSpatio-temporal distribution of Anthonomus grandis grandis Boh. in tropical cotton fields.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
520 $aThe boll weevil, Anthonomus grandis grandis Boheman (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), is considered to be the most harmful cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., pest throughout subtropical, and tropical regions of the western hemisphere.1,2 Boll weevil damages cotton by feeding upon and laying eggs inside its reproductive structures, where hatched larvae feed and pupate,3,4 causing abscission or reduction of fiber quality,3,5,6 and economic losses of up to US$74 million per year.7 Boll weevil chemical control interventions are based on economic thresholds obtained by sampling the plants and for adult boll weevils captured in pheromone-baited traps.3,8,9 In order to develop an accurate monitoring and management program, estimates of population density are essential.10,11 Biotic and abiotic factors affect dynamics and within-field distribution (aggregated, random or uniform patterns) of insect populations.10,12 Knowing a pest's distribution within a field can help to: (1) develop site-specific sampling and control efforts; (2) predict pest movement; (3) improve insecticide-resistance management; (4) conserve biological control agents by precision targeting sprays for the infested areas; and (5) reduce the economic, social and environmental costs associated with pest control.10,11,13 The spatial distribution of boll weevils has been investigated using mean?variance relationships4,14 without considering within-field spatial density distribution, or has been based on pheromone-baited trap captures.15 The most accurate approach is the use of geostatistics because the position of the samples in space is accounted for.16 Recent work reported that geostatistics is of particular interest for pest management because it allows inferences about the minimum inter-sample distance needed to obtain independent estimations and indicates patterns of distribution and colonization of an organism, all of which are crucial for the development of effective sampling programs.11,13 The purpose of this study was to investigate the spatial dynamics of A. grandis grandis on cotton by determining within-field distribution of adults and infested reproductive structures (having feeding and/or oviposition punctures).
650 $aAnthonomus grandis grandis
650 $aBroccoli
650 $aCabbage
650 $aCarrots
650 $aCassava
650 $aCotton
650 $aEntomology
650 $aGarlic
650 $aGeostatistics
650 $aPlant pests
650 $aSunflower seed products
650 $aSunflower seed protein
650 $aTropical agriculture
650 $aVegetables
650 $aAlgodão
650 $aAlho
650 $aAnthonomus Grandis
650 $aBatata Doce
650 $aBicudo
650 $aCenoura
650 $aClima Tropical
650 $aCouve
650 $aEntomologia
650 $aEstatística Agrícola
650 $aGirassol
650 $aGossypium Hirsutum
650 $aMandioca
650 $aPeste
650 $aPraga de Planta
650 $aRepolho
650 $aTomate
653 $aBrócolis
653 $aHortaliças
653 $aSunflower
653 $aSweet potato
653 $aTomato
700 1 $aARAÚJO, T. A.
700 1 $aSHOWLER, A. T.
700 1 $aARAÚJO, A. C. A.
700 1 $aALMEIDA, I. S.
700 1 $aAGUIAR, R. S. A.
700 1 $aMIRANDA, J. E.
700 1 $aFERNANDES, F. L.
700 1 $aBASTOS, C. S.
773 $tPest Management Science$gv. 78, n. 3, p. 2492-2501, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Algodão (CNPA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Catálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Acre; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Florestas; Embrapa Gado de Corte; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Pantanal; Embrapa Solos. MenosCatálogo Coletivo de Periódicos Embrapa; Embrapa Acre; Embrapa Amapá; Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental; Embrapa Amazônia Oriental; Embrapa Cerrados; Embrapa Florestas; Embrapa Gado de Corte; Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura; Embrapa Pantanal... Mostrar Todas |
|
Identificador: |
65 |
|
Data corrente: |
09/05/2002 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
30/04/2015 |
|
Código do título: |
0900418 |
|
ISSN: |
0100-1329 |
|
Código CCN: |
000644-0 |
|
Título e Subtítulo: |
ACTA AMAZONICA. SUPLEMENTO |
|
Entidade: |
Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia |
|
Local de publicação: |
Manaus, AM |
|
Periodicidade: |
Trimestral |
|
Inicio de publicação: |
1971 |
|
Coleções da unidade: |
Embrapa Acre
1976 6 (1-4); 1977 7 (1-3); 1978 8 (1 supl 1-3), (2 supl 1-3); 1979 9 (2); 1981 11 ( 3); 1985 (3/4); 1986/87 16/17; 1993 23 (1)
Classificação: 581.05
Embrapa Amapá
1976 6 (1-4); 1977 7 (1-3); 1978 8 (2-3); 1982 12 (3); 1985 15 (1-4); 1986-1987 16-17 (único) ; 1993 23 (1/4)
Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental
1971 1(1-2); 1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1(sup.1-2), 2(supl.1-2), 3(supl. 1-2), 4); 1979 9(1-3); 1980 10(1, 4); 1981 11(1,3); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1-2); 1985 15(1-4); 1986-1987 16-17; 1988 18 (1-2); 1993 23 (1-4).
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental
1971 1(1-2); 1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1 pt 1-2, 2 pt 1-2, 3 pt 1-2, 4); 1979 9(1-4); 1980 10(1,4); 1981 11(1,3); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1985 15(1-4); 1986 16; 1988 18(1/2); 1993 23(1/4)
Classificação: 581.05A181
Embrapa Cerrados
1971 1(1-2); 1977 7(1,4); 1979 9(1-3); 1980 10(4); 1981 11(3); 1986/87 16/17; 1993 23(1/4)
Classificação: 581.05
Embrapa Florestas
1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1-4); 1979 9(4); 1980 10(1); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1985 15(1/2); 1986/87 16/17; 1988 18(1/2); 1993 23 (2/3)
Embrapa Gado de Corte
1976 6(SUPL 4); 1978 8(SUPL 3); 1984 [14] SUPL 1/2; 1985 15(SUPL 3/4); 1986/87 16/17 SUPL; 1988 18(SUPL 1-2); 1993 23 SUPL;
Classificação: 505
Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura
1971 1(1-3); 1972 2(1-3); 1973 3(1-3); 1974 4(1-3); 1985 5(1-3); 1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1-4); 1979 9(1-4); 1980 10(1-4-Index); 1981 11(1-4); 1982 12(1-3); 1983 13(1-6); 1984 14(1-4); 1985 15(1-4-Index); 1986/87 16/17(1); 1988 18(1-4); 1989 19(Unico); 1990 20(Unico); 1991 21(Unico); 1992 22(1-4); 1993 23(1-4-Index); 1994 24(1-4); 1995 25(1-4); 1996 26(1-4); 1997 27(1-4); 1998 28(1-4); 1999 29(1-4); 2000 30(1-4); 2001 31(1-4); 2002 32(3); 2003 33(2-4); 2004 34(1-4); 2005 35(1-4); 2006 36(1-4); 2007 37(1-3); 2008 38(2-4 ); 2009 39(1-4); 2010 40(1-4); 2011 41(1-2-3-4); 2012 42 (1-4); 2013 43(1-2-3-4); 2014 44 (1-4); 2015 45(1-2-3-4); 2016 46 (2,3,4); 2017 47(1); 2017 47(1-4); 2018 48(1-2-3); 2019 49 (1-2-3-4) 2020 50 (1-2-3)
Embrapa Pantanal
1976 6(1-4); 1977 7(1-4); 1978 8(1(Supl1-2), 2(Supl1-2), 3(Supl1-2), 4); 1979 9(1-4); 1980 10(1,4); 1981 11(1,3); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1985 15(3/4); 1986/87 16/17(único); 1993 23(1/4)
Classificação: 1F/2A
Embrapa Solos
1971 1(1); 1976 6(1-3); 1977 7(2,4); 1978 8(1 supl 1,3 supl 1,3 supl 2); 1980 10(4); 1981 11(1); 1982 12(3); 1984 14(1/2); 1986/87 16/17; 1988 18(1/2); 1993 23
Classificação: 581.05 |
|
Fechar
|
|
|
