Wood Preference of Reticulitermes virginicus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) Using No-, Two-, and Four-Choice Designs and Seven Different Measures of Wood Consumption.
Identifieur interne : 001599 ( Main/Exploration ); précédent : 001598; suivant : 001600Wood Preference of Reticulitermes virginicus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) Using No-, Two-, and Four-Choice Designs and Seven Different Measures of Wood Consumption.
Auteurs : T-Y Lee ; B T ForschlerSource :
- Journal of economic entomology [ 0022-0493 ] ; 2016.
Descripteurs français
- KwdFr :
- MESH :
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- MESH :
Abstract
Three hundred Reticulitermes virginicus (Banks) workers were exposed to three 1-cm3 wood blocks of either Quercus sp. (Red Oak), Populus sp. (Poplar), Pinus sp. (Pine), or Sequoia sp. (Redwood) placed into one of the three bioassay designs (no-, two-, and four-choice) for 21 d. Termite wood consumption was measured by wood weight loss, resistance class, and visual rating. Wood consumption rates were determined using four formulas in addition to two standardized visual rating scales (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] and American Wood Protection Association [AWPA]) and a preference ranking obtained for each measure. The wood consumption formula, rating scale, and preference rankings were compared by bioassay design. The overall preference ranking of the four wood types as determined by the combination of all three designs was—1) Pine, 2) Red Oak, 3) Redwood, and 4) Poplar. Results indicate that bioassay design influenced both wood consumption and preference rankings. A no-choice design can determine aversion; a four-choice design the most preferred wood; and a two-choice design can illuminate the fine details of comparative preference. The different formulas employed for calculation of consumption rate influenced preference ranking in the no- and four-choice designs but not the two-choice design.
DOI: 10.1093/jee/tov391
PubMed: 26743217
Affiliations:
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Wood Preference of Reticulitermes virginicus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) Using No-, Two-, and Four-Choice Designs and Seven Different Measures of Wood Consumption.</title><author><name sortKey="Lee, T Y" sort="Lee, T Y" uniqKey="Lee T" first="T-Y" last="Lee">T-Y Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Forschler, B T" sort="Forschler, B T" uniqKey="Forschler B" first="B T" last="Forschler">B T Forschler</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno><date when="2016">2016</date><idno type="RBID">pubmed:26743217</idno><idno type="pmid">26743217</idno><idno type="doi">10.1093/jee/tov391</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Corpus">001972</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">001972</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Curation">001972</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Main" wicri:step="Curation">001972</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Main/Exploration">001972</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">Wood Preference of Reticulitermes virginicus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) Using No-, Two-, and Four-Choice Designs and Seven Different Measures of Wood Consumption.</title><author><name sortKey="Lee, T Y" sort="Lee, T Y" uniqKey="Lee T" first="T-Y" last="Lee">T-Y Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Forschler, B T" sort="Forschler, B T" uniqKey="Forschler B" first="B T" last="Forschler">B T Forschler</name></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Journal of economic entomology</title><idno type="ISSN">0022-0493</idno><imprint><date when="2016" type="published">2016</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals (MeSH)</term><term>Choice Behavior (MeSH)</term><term>Food Preferences (MeSH)</term><term>Isoptera (MeSH)</term><term>Pinus (MeSH)</term><term>Populus (MeSH)</term><term>Quercus (MeSH)</term><term>Sequoia (MeSH)</term><term>Wood (MeSH)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="KwdFr" xml:lang="fr"><term>Animaux (MeSH)</term><term>Bois (MeSH)</term><term>Comportement de choix (MeSH)</term><term>Isoptera (MeSH)</term><term>Pinus (MeSH)</term><term>Populus (MeSH)</term><term>Préférences alimentaires (MeSH)</term><term>Quercus (MeSH)</term><term>Sequoia (MeSH)</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="en"><term>Animals</term><term>Choice Behavior</term><term>Food Preferences</term><term>Isoptera</term><term>Pinus</term><term>Populus</term><term>Quercus</term><term>Sequoia</term><term>Wood</term></keywords><keywords scheme="MESH" xml:lang="fr"><term>Animaux</term><term>Bois</term><term>Comportement de choix</term><term>Isoptera</term><term>Pinus</term><term>Populus</term><term>Préférences alimentaires</term><term>Quercus</term><term>Sequoia</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Three hundred Reticulitermes virginicus (Banks) workers were exposed to three 1-cm3 wood blocks of either Quercus sp. (Red Oak), Populus sp. (Poplar), Pinus sp. (Pine), or Sequoia sp. (Redwood) placed into one of the three bioassay designs (no-, two-, and four-choice) for 21 d. Termite wood consumption was measured by wood weight loss, resistance class, and visual rating. Wood consumption rates were determined using four formulas in addition to two standardized visual rating scales (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] and American Wood Protection Association [AWPA]) and a preference ranking obtained for each measure. The wood consumption formula, rating scale, and preference rankings were compared by bioassay design. The overall preference ranking of the four wood types as determined by the combination of all three designs was—1) Pine, 2) Red Oak, 3) Redwood, and 4) Poplar. Results indicate that bioassay design influenced both wood consumption and preference rankings. A no-choice design can determine aversion; a four-choice design the most preferred wood; and a two-choice design can illuminate the fine details of comparative preference. The different formulas employed for calculation of consumption rate influenced preference ranking in the no- and four-choice designs but not the two-choice design.</div></front></TEI><pubmed><MedlineCitation Status="MEDLINE" Owner="NLM"><PMID Version="1">26743217</PMID><DateCompleted><Year>2016</Year><Month>09</Month><Day>22</Day></DateCompleted><DateRevised><Year>2016</Year><Month>06</Month><Day>30</Day></DateRevised><Article PubModel="Print"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">0022-0493</ISSN><JournalIssue CitedMedium="Print"><Volume>109</Volume><Issue>2</Issue><PubDate><Year>2016</Year><Month>Apr</Month></PubDate></JournalIssue><Title>Journal of economic entomology</Title><ISOAbbreviation>J Econ Entomol</ISOAbbreviation></Journal><ArticleTitle>Wood Preference of Reticulitermes virginicus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) Using No-, Two-, and Four-Choice Designs and Seven Different Measures of Wood Consumption.</ArticleTitle><Pagination><MedlinePgn>785-91</MedlinePgn></Pagination><Abstract><AbstractText>Three hundred Reticulitermes virginicus (Banks) workers were exposed to three 1-cm3 wood blocks of either Quercus sp. (Red Oak), Populus sp. (Poplar), Pinus sp. (Pine), or Sequoia sp. (Redwood) placed into one of the three bioassay designs (no-, two-, and four-choice) for 21 d. Termite wood consumption was measured by wood weight loss, resistance class, and visual rating. Wood consumption rates were determined using four formulas in addition to two standardized visual rating scales (American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM] and American Wood Protection Association [AWPA]) and a preference ranking obtained for each measure. The wood consumption formula, rating scale, and preference rankings were compared by bioassay design. The overall preference ranking of the four wood types as determined by the combination of all three designs was—1) Pine, 2) Red Oak, 3) Redwood, and 4) Poplar. Results indicate that bioassay design influenced both wood consumption and preference rankings. A no-choice design can determine aversion; a four-choice design the most preferred wood; and a two-choice design can illuminate the fine details of comparative preference. The different formulas employed for calculation of consumption rate influenced preference ranking in the no- and four-choice designs but not the two-choice design.</AbstractText></Abstract><AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Lee</LastName><ForeName>T-Y</ForeName><Initials>TY</Initials></Author><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Forschler</LastName><ForeName>B T</ForeName><Initials>BT</Initials></Author></AuthorList><Language>eng</Language><PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D003160">Comparative Study</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType><PublicationType UI="D013485">Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't</PublicationType></PublicationTypeList></Article><MedlineJournalInfo><Country>England</Country><MedlineTA>J Econ Entomol</MedlineTA><NlmUniqueID>2985127R</NlmUniqueID><ISSNLinking>0022-0493</ISSNLinking></MedlineJournalInfo><CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset><MeshHeadingList><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D000818" MajorTopicYN="N">Animals</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D002755" MajorTopicYN="N">Choice Behavior</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D005518" MajorTopicYN="Y">Food Preferences</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D020049" MajorTopicYN="Y">Isoptera</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D028223" MajorTopicYN="N">Pinus</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D032107" MajorTopicYN="N">Populus</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D029963" MajorTopicYN="N">Quercus</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D032487" MajorTopicYN="N">Sequoia</DescriptorName></MeshHeading><MeshHeading><DescriptorName UI="D014934" MajorTopicYN="Y">Wood</DescriptorName></MeshHeading></MeshHeadingList></MedlineCitation><PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2016</Year><Month>1</Month><Day>9</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2016</Year><Month>1</Month><Day>9</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2016</Year><Month>9</Month><Day>23</Day><Hour>6</Hour><Minute>0</Minute></PubMedPubDate></History><PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus><ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="pubmed">26743217</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="pii">tov391</ArticleId><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1093/jee/tov391</ArticleId></ArticleIdList></PubmedData></pubmed><affiliations><list></list><tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Forschler, B T" sort="Forschler, B T" uniqKey="Forschler B" first="B T" last="Forschler">B T Forschler</name><name sortKey="Lee, T Y" sort="Lee, T Y" uniqKey="Lee T" first="T-Y" last="Lee">T-Y Lee</name></noCountry></tree></affiliations></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Bois/explor/PoplarV1/Data/Main/Exploration
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001599 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd -nk 001599 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Bois
|area= PoplarV1
|flux= Main
|étape= Exploration
|type= RBID
|clé= pubmed:26743217
|texte= Wood Preference of Reticulitermes virginicus (Blattodea: Rhinotermitidae) Using No-, Two-, and Four-Choice Designs and Seven Different Measures of Wood Consumption.
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:26743217" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Main/Exploration/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a PoplarV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.37. |  |