Distribuição espacial de <i>Ceratitis capitata</i> em pomares de goiabeira e influências do manejo de pomares

Nicácio, J.; Abot, A. R.; Oliveira, M. P.; Silva, J. L.; Garcia, F. R. M.

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Journal of Biology

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Braz. J. Biol. 82 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.263741 copiar

Distribuição espacial de Ceratitis capitata em pomares de goiabeira e influências do manejo de pomares

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumo

Os objetivos desta pesquisa foram: (i) estimar a ocorrência quantitativa de Ceratitis capitata capturada em armadilhas McPhail no pomares de goiabeira; (ii) investigar os padrões de distribuição espacial de C. capitata em pomares de goiabeira; (iii) comparar o índice do MAD (mosca da fruta/armadilha/dia) ao tipo de distribuição espacial de C. capitata com o Binomial Negativo para definir o melhor momento para controle da população no contexto do Manejo Integrado de Pragas; (iv) Verificar a influência da poda, pulverização e roçada nas distribuições da espécie em goiabeira. Foram utilizadas 30 armadilhas McPhail instaladas em três pomares comerciais de goiabeira. A distribuição espacial foi avaliada pelo modelo de regressão com o método Taylor power, do log da variância ao log do número médio de indivíduos. C. capitata tem comportamento de distribuição agregado. O risco potencial de dano econômico está associado ao comportamento da distribuição agregada. O início desta distribuição indica o momento mais adequado para o uso de técnicas de controle.

Palavras-chave:
mosca do mediterrâneo; distribuição agregada; monitoramento populacional; capturas; manejo

NF ♀♂	A.M	Aggregation Indexes				Frequency distribution						Type of management
		FTD	I	I δ	K-factor	Poisson		NB		PB		Type of management
		FTD	I	I δ	K-factor	χ^2Signf	g.l	χ^2Signf	g.l	χ^2Signf	g.l	Pg/Sp	LB/Mp
8	6	0.04	1.28^AL	4.29^AL	0.97^AG	2.15^NS	1	0.51	0ⁱ i Degree of freedom and calculated chi-square, being insufficient to adhere to the type of distribution; A.M = NA = Number of traps with C. capitata capture (Positive); NF = Number of flies (n = 3150); FTD index = Ratio of the number of flies per trap and the number of days of exposure of these traps; I = Average Variance Ratio Index; Iδ = Morisite Index; K = k-exponent calculated by the method of moments, with the value of χ2, corresponding to an error probability of 5% (α = 0.05), with the significance of the occurrence of the number of C. capitata for the indices: AG = aggregate distribution ; UN = Uniform distribution; AL = Random distribution; Poisson = “Random” frequency distribution; NB = Negative Binomial Frequency Distribution “aggregated or contagious” and PB = Positive Binomial Frequency Distribution “Uniform”. Pg = Pruned guava trees; Sp = Orchard sprayed; LB = Leaf biomass cover in; Mp = Weeds cut (mowing); S = type of management performed; N = type of management not performed; E = Period in which the cultivar was under the effect of the management implemented and; '- - -' = Decision-making thresholds at the security and control action levels.	2.56	0ⁱ	N/N	5/5
9	5	0.04	1.87^AG	5.83^AL	0.34^AG	6.84^ 1% error probability (p<0.01);	1	1.50	0ⁱ	7.06	0ⁱ	N/E	3/3
9	7	0.04	1.41^AL	2.50^AL	0.73^AG	0.10^NS	1	0.93	0ⁱ	0.11	0ⁱ	N/E	5/5
10	7	0.05	1.31^AL	2.00^AL	1.07^AG	3.56^NS	1	1.24	0ⁱ	4.37	0ⁱ	E/S	2/2
10	7	0.05	1.52^AL	3.00^AL	0.64^AG	1.09^NS	1	0.00	0ⁱ	1.16	0ⁱ	E/S	2/3
10	9	0.05	0.90^AL	0.67^AL	-3.22^UN	019^NS	1	0.01	0ⁱ	0.17	0ⁱ	N/E	5/5
10	7	0.05	1.52^AL	4.00^AL	0.64^AG	1.09^NS	1	0.00	0ⁱ	1.16	0ⁱ	N/N	5/5
11	9	0.05	1.03^AL	1.36^AL	11.70^AL	0.16^NS	1	0.10	0ⁱ	0.19	0ⁱ	N/N	2/3
12	10	0.06	0.97^AL	1.82^AL	-11.60^UN	0.01^NS	1	0.04	0ⁱ	0.02	0ⁱ	N/N	5/5
13	7	0.06	1.86^AG	3.27^AL	0.50^AG	5.81**	1	1.55	-1ⁱ	6.01	0ⁱ	N/N	4/4
16	11	0.08	1.52^AL	2.00^AL	1.03^AG	30.93**	1	0.31^NS	1	0.37	0ⁱ	E/S	¼
16	7	0.08	2.29^AG	3.50A^AG	0.41^AG	8.78**	1	2.76^NS	4	28.40	0ⁱ	S/N	½
17	12	0.08	1.18^AL	1.43^AL	3.17^AG	0.47^NS	1	0.08	0ⁱ	0.54	0ⁱ	N/N	5/5
18	12	0.09	1.79^AG	2.45^AL	0.76^AG	0.34^NS	1	1.52^NS	1	0.37	0ⁱ	N/S	4/5
22	10	0.10	3.00^AG	3.83^AL	0.37^AG	31.48**	2	0.86^NS	2	6.45**	1	E/N	1/4
26	13	0.12	2.37^AG	2.58^AL	0.63^AG	36.26**	2	1.95^NS	2	14.92**	2	S/N	1/1
34	15	0.16	1.63^AG	1.55^AL	1.81^AG	10.07**	2	4.33^NS	2	13.94**	1	E/N	1/4
37	15	0.18	2.67^AG	2.34^AL	0.74^AG	34.77**	3	1.48^NS	3	13.33**	2	N/S	5/1
37	20	0.18	1.27^AL	1.24^AL	4.60^AG	4.67^NS	3	2.14^NS	2	0.46^NS	1	N/E	4/4
40	12	0.19	5.29^AG	4.19^AG	0.31^AG	21.98**	2	5.59^NS	3	34.20**	1	S/S	1/4
46	18	0.22	2.10^AG	1.84^AL	1.39^AG	9.21^* * 5% error probability (p<0.05); g.l = Degree of freedom of the χ2 distribution; Signf = chi-square value and significance;	3	1.80^NS	1	12.89**	2	N/E	3/4
53	15	0.25	4.05^AG	2.70^AL	0.58^AG	27.64**	4	3.51^NS	3	30.27**	2	N/N	3/4
59	19	0.28	3.10^AG	2.05^AG	0.94^AG	11.50**	2	5.45^NS	2	21.69**	2	E/N	1/2
63	18	0.30	3.56^AG	2.20^AG	0.82^AG	30.73**	4	5.79^NS	5	32.38**	3	N/N	5/1
70	19	0.33	3.50^AG	2.05^AL	0.93^AG	45.91**	4	11.40^NS	6	52.72**	3	S/N	1/4
77	18	0.37	5.88^AG	2.86^AG	0.53^AG	54.40**	4	2.88^NS	4	62.49**	3	E/N	1/2
82	17	0.39	6.76^AG	3.06^AG	0.47^AG	77.05**	4	1.93^NS	5	126.61**	3	E/N	2/2
149	24	0.71	9.24^AG	2.61^AG	0.60^AG	50.67**	6	9.35^NS	8	47.33**	5	N/N	1/4
184	24	0.88	21.18^AG	4.20^AG	0.30^AG	181.68**	4	16.10*	6	260.2**	3	N/S	1/4
241	28	1.15	15.71^AG	2.78^AG	0.55^AG	210.45**	5	17.03*	8	196.21**	3	N/N	3/4
275	23	1.31	22.29^AG	3.25^AG	0.43^AG	73.17**	3	10.67^NS	8	109.15	1	E/N	2/3
450	29	2.14	28.91^AG	2.80^AG	0.54^AG	331.85**	2	16.95^NS	12	311.01	0ⁱ	E/N	2/3
764	29	3.64	42.76^AG	2.59^AG	0.61^AG	224.76**	4	21.36*	10	43.46	-1ⁱ	E/N	1/3
784	27	3.73	23.94^AG	1.85^AG	1.14^AG	285.03**	3	68.86**	11	153.94	0ⁱ	N/N	5/1
1035	25	4.93	93.70^AG	3.60^AL	0.37^AG	197.59**	6	24.97^NS	8	35.37	-1ⁱ	N/N	5/1
1117	30	5.32	40.67^AG	2.04^AG	0.94^AG	266.97**	6	12.68^NS	12	21.95**	2	E/N	1/2
5811	27	27.67	178.13^AG	1.88^AG	1.09^AG	206.81**	1	15.02*	6	0ⁱ	0ⁱ	N/N	5/2

Type of management	Distribution of Ceratitis capitata					Multiple comparison
Type of management	Minimum Number (#)	Maximum	Median	Average	SD	Multiple comparison
Pruning and Spray	0	18	0.24	0.41	1.29	a
Spraying	0	30	0.34	0.85	2.53	a
Pruning	0	170	0.50	3.84	14.15	b
No pruning and no spraying	0	623	1.32	25.90	77.29	c

Treatment	Management		p(ɵ\|у)
Treatment	Pg/Sp	Lb/Mp	Pg	Sp	Lb	Mp
t1	E/N	1/4	0.038	0	0.050	0.251
t2	E/N	1/3	0.043	0	0.061	0.220
t3	E/N	1/2	0.052	0	0.072	0.176
t4	E/N	1/2	0.052	0	0.072	0.176
t5	E/N	2/3	0.038	0	0.104	0.189
t6	E/N	2/2	0.043	0	0.119	0.145
t7	E/S	1/4	0.033	0.008	0.047	0.220
t8	E/S	2/3	0.033	0.008	0.090	0.167
t9	E/S	2/2	0.038	0.008	0.104	0.128
t10	N/E	3/4	0	0.013	0.119	0.194
t11	N/E	3/3	0	0.015	0.137	0.167
t12	N/E	5/5	0	0.010	0.151	0.185
t13	N/E	4/4	0	0.012	0.144	0.176
t14	N/N	1/4	0	0	0.072	0.352
t15	N/N	2/3	0	0	0.144	0.264
t16	N/N	3/4	0	0	0.155	0.251
t17	N/N	5/5	0	0	0.180	0.220
t18	N/N	4/4	0	0	0.180	0.220
t19	N/N	5/2	0	0	0.256	0.128
t20	N/N	5/1	0	0	0.299	0.075
t21	N/N	5/1	0	0	0.299	0.075
t22	N/S	1/4	0	0.010	0.061	0.295
t23	N/S	4/5	0	0.006	0.144	0.220
t24	N/S	5/1	0	0.008	0.256	0.062
t25	S/N	1/4	0.022	0	0.061	0.295
t26	S/N	1/2	0.033	0	0.090	0.220
t27	S/N	1/1	0.043	0	0.119	0.145
t28	S/S	1/4	0.018	0.008	0.050	0.251
Probability	-	-	0.3600	0.0017	0.1792	0.4591
Chance of occurrences	-	-	0.9300	0.4475	2.5250	3.1050

Instituto Internacional de Ecologia R. Bento Carlos, 750, 13560-660 São Carlos SP - Brasil, Tel. e Fax: (55 16) 3362-5400 - São Carlos - SP - Brazil
E-mail: bjb@bjb.com.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *e-mail: flaviormg@hotmail.com