Elasmopalpus lignosellus
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.1653/024.099.0102 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/543C87EB-FF80-FFB9-8B2E-423DFF31FCB9 |
treatment provided by |
Felipe |
scientific name |
Elasmopalpus lignosellus |
status |
|
Removal of the crop residue by burning resulted in significantly greater insect-inflicted damage in all locations and years compared with residue retention; all burned plots received damage by E. lignosellus . The main effect (treatment of crop residue) was the most important source of variation (F = 139.5; df = 1; P <0.0001), far exceeding the year effect (F = 5.08; df = 2; P = 0.0027) and the location effect (F = 3.73; df = 2; P = 0.0228). The year*treatment interaction was marginally significant (F = 2.38; df = 2; P = 0.0815) ( Table 1).
At the Simoca location for the 3 yr of the study, no dead hearts were found on those rows where the crop residue was allowed to remain unburned. At Fronterita, the unburned plots showed some injury during the 2011 season, although this level of damage did not differ significantly from zero. Conversely, the 1-sample t -test in all burned plots from Simoca and Fronterita showed that the levels of damaged shoots were significantly different from zero, with maximum values of 17 and 23%, respectively ( Fig. 1a View Fig ).
In Luisiana, the injury levels observed in both “residue burned” and “residue retained” plots were significantly different from zero. The 2-sample t -test showed that damage was greater in the “residue burned” treatment during the 3 yr of the study: year 2011 (t = 2.92; df = 22; P = 0.0079), year 2012 (t = 5.14; df = 11; P = 0.0003), and year 2013 (t = 4.72; df = 13; P = 0.0004). Maximum injury levels were 23 and 8% for “residue retained” and “residue burned” treatments, respectively ( Fig. 1a View Fig ).
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.