p. 1−11
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 13−22
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 23−34
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 35−44
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 45−54
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 55−68
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 69−89
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 91−94
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 95−110
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
Pro-lure 5 > Pro-lure 2% > Bioprox > Agrisense > Agrinal > Buminal > Norlan and Amadene; however, the CTDs of these preparations were 0.60, 0.60, 0.51, 0.49, 0.42, 0.22, 0.15, 0.13 and 0.13, respectively.
The present results showed that, adding the pesticide, malathion to the food attractant preparations was obviously reduced the attractiveness of the lures to both MFF and PFF adults. All of the tested preparations were attracted MFF and PFF females with a significantly high numbers in comparison to males. Regression analysis illustrated that the tested food attractants exhibited high stability by the time passed, where the passed time had not any significant effect on the potentiality of the tested preparations.]]>
p. 111−118
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 119−123
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 125−131
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 135−145
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 147−164
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 165−170
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 171−175
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 171−178
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 179−185
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 187−195
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 197−209
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 211−219
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 221−230
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2
p. 231−243
2090-0813
Vol.2/No.2