Paper · 2024 · Insects

Mealybug Population Dynamics: A Comparative Analysis of Sampling Methods for Saccharicoccus sacchari and Heliococcus summervillei in Sugarcane (Saccharum sp. Hybrids)

Hang Xu; Jacob A. Humpal; Bree A. L. Wilson; et al.

7
claims
7
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

This research is focused on a comparative field-based study of the population dynamics and sampling methods of two mealybug species, Saccharicoccus sacchari (Cockerell, 1895) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha, Pseudococcidae) and Heliococcus summervillei (Brookes, 1978) (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha, Pseudococcidae), in sugarcane (Saccharum sp. hybrids) (f. Poaceae) over consecutive growing seasons. The research monitored and compared the above- and belowground populations and seasonal abundance of these two mealybug species in sugarcane fields in Far North Queensland, with non-destructive sampling techniques of yellow sticky traps, pan traps, and stem traps, and destructive sampling of the whole leaf and whole plant. The results indicated that S. sacchari (n = 29,137) was more abundant and detected throughout the growing season, with population peaks in the mid-season, while H. summervillei (n = 2706) showed peaks of the early-season activity. S. sacchari is primarily located on sugarcane stems and roots, compared to H. summervillei, which is located on leaves and roots. The whole-leaf collection and stem trap were the most effective sampling techniques for quantification of H. summervillei and S. sacchari, respectively. This study enhanced the understanding of S. sacchari and the first-ever record of H. summervillei on sugarcane in Australia and will contribute to the development of more effective pest management strategies.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Saccharicoccus sacchari was more abundant, with 29,137 individuals, and peaked in mid-season.

Interactor
H. summervilleiHeliococcus summervilleie0pest
Outcome
more abundante0
Direction
more abundante0
Value
29,137e0
Comparator
H. summervilleie0

Verbatim

e0

“S. sacchari (n = 29,137) was more abundant and detected throughout the growing season, with population peaks in the mid-season, while H. summervillei (n = 2706) showed peaks of the early-season activity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 739–942 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heliococcus summervillei numbered 2,706 and peaked early in the season.

Taxon
H. summervilleiHeliococcus summervilleie0
Outcome
peaks of the early-season activitye0
Value
2706e0

Verbatim

e0

“H. summervillei (n = 2706) showed peaks of the early-season activity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 873–942 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Saccharicoccus sacchari was primarily on sugarcane stems and roots.

Organ / stage
stems and rootse0
Outcome
located on sugarcane stems and rootse0

Verbatim

e0

“S. sacchari is primarily located on sugarcane stems and roots, compared to H. summervillei, which is located on leaves and roots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1072 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Heliococcus summervillei was located on leaves and roots.

Taxon
H. summervilleiHeliococcus summervilleie0
Organ / stage
leaves and rootse0
Outcome
located on leaves and rootse0

Verbatim

e0

“H. summervillei, which is located on leaves and roots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1018–1072 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Whole-leaf collection was most effective for quantifying H. summervillei.

Taxon
H. summervilleiHeliococcus summervilleie0
Outcome
most effective sampling techniques for quantificatione0
Direction
most effectivee0
Comparator
stem trape0

Verbatim

e0

“The whole-leaf collection and stem trap were the most effective sampling techniques for quantification of H. summervillei and S. sacchari, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1225 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Stem trap was most effective for quantifying S. sacchari.

Outcome
most effective sampling techniques for quantificatione0
Direction
most effectivee0
Comparator
whole-leaf collectione0

Verbatim

e0

“The whole-leaf collection and stem trap were the most effective sampling techniques for quantification of H. summervillei and S. sacchari, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1073–1225 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The study records H. summervillei on sugarcane in Australia for the first time.

Taxon
H. summervilleiHeliococcus summervilleie0
Interactor
sugarcanee0host
Outcome
first-ever recorde0
Setting
Australiae0

Verbatim

e0

“first-ever record of H. summervillei on sugarcane in Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1287–1349 · show in text ↑