眼见为实:一项为期14年的关于视觉检查保护大型哺乳动物免受害虫侵害的有效性和经济性的研究

T. Strang, Jeremy P. Jacobs
{"title":"眼见为实:一项为期14年的关于视觉检查保护大型哺乳动物免受害虫侵害的有效性和经济性的研究","authors":"T. Strang, Jeremy P. Jacobs","doi":"10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In response to the cessation of use of in-case fumigants, from 1995–2009 the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History's Division of Mammals (DOM) applied a consistent voluntary visual inspection protocol over a period of 14 years. On average, per-case inspections required about 7 minutes. Inspections categorized case pest activity as clean, soiled, signs of life, and live insects. These categories compartmentalized levels of uncertainty about pest activity and directly led to remedial treatment and cleaning actions performed at a case level. Evidence of recurrent reinfestation led to case renovation or replacement.\n In order for an integrated pest management (IPM) method to be successful, it has to demonstrate a predatory efficacy better than the replacement and recruitment rates of the pests. With at most 1.5% of staff time devoted to IPM, case infestations of Thylodrias contractus (Motschulsky 1839) Coleoptera: Dermestidae and Necrobia rufipes (De Geer 1775) Coleoptera: Cleridae were lowered to near zero within 3 years. Rebound toward initial rates occurred after a forced 3-year hiatus in inspections and was similarly dealt with by a following round of inspections. The hourly investment of time is comparable with that of previous case repellant or fumigation regimes, but without the aggregated loss of access to collections during enclosure and out-gassing of fumigant, thus allowing longer and safer access to collections over a year, and instilling greater knowledge of specimen condition across the collection regardless of current research focus. The study also includes an economic comparison to historical methods of case level pest suppression with fumigants against two other comparably large collections documented within the last half century.","PeriodicalId":10705,"journal":{"name":"Collection Forum","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seeing is Believing, A Fourteen-Year Study on Efficacy and Economics of Visual Inspections to Protect A Large Mammal Collection from Insect Pests\",\"authors\":\"T. Strang, Jeremy P. Jacobs\",\"doi\":\"10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In response to the cessation of use of in-case fumigants, from 1995–2009 the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History's Division of Mammals (DOM) applied a consistent voluntary visual inspection protocol over a period of 14 years. On average, per-case inspections required about 7 minutes. Inspections categorized case pest activity as clean, soiled, signs of life, and live insects. These categories compartmentalized levels of uncertainty about pest activity and directly led to remedial treatment and cleaning actions performed at a case level. Evidence of recurrent reinfestation led to case renovation or replacement.\\n In order for an integrated pest management (IPM) method to be successful, it has to demonstrate a predatory efficacy better than the replacement and recruitment rates of the pests. With at most 1.5% of staff time devoted to IPM, case infestations of Thylodrias contractus (Motschulsky 1839) Coleoptera: Dermestidae and Necrobia rufipes (De Geer 1775) Coleoptera: Cleridae were lowered to near zero within 3 years. Rebound toward initial rates occurred after a forced 3-year hiatus in inspections and was similarly dealt with by a following round of inspections. The hourly investment of time is comparable with that of previous case repellant or fumigation regimes, but without the aggregated loss of access to collections during enclosure and out-gassing of fumigant, thus allowing longer and safer access to collections over a year, and instilling greater knowledge of specimen condition across the collection regardless of current research focus. The study also includes an economic comparison to historical methods of case level pest suppression with fumigants against two other comparably large collections documented within the last half century.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10705,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collection Forum\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collection Forum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collection Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14351/0831-4985-32.1.59","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了停止使用箱内熏蒸剂,从1995年到2009年,史密森学会、国家自然历史博物馆哺乳动物部门(DOM)在14年的时间里实施了一项一致的自愿目视检查协议。平均而言,每个案例的检查需要大约7分钟。检查将病虫害活动分类为干净、污染、有生命迹象和活昆虫。这些分类划分了病虫害活动的不确定性水平,并直接导致在个案一级进行补救治疗和清洁行动。复发复发的证据导致病例翻新或更换。为了使害虫综合治理(IPM)方法取得成功,它必须证明其捕食效果优于害虫的替代和招募率。利用最多1.5%的工作人员时间进行IPM,在3年内将收缩Thylodrias contractus (Motschulsky, 1839年)、鞘翅目:皮蝇科和Necrobia rufipes (De Geer, 1775年)、鞘翅目:Cleridae的病例感染率降至接近零。在强制中断了3年的检查之后,石油产量开始回升,并在随后的一轮检查中得到了类似的处理。每小时的时间投入与以前的驱蚊剂或熏蒸方案相当,但在封闭和熏蒸剂排气期间没有收集标本的总体损失,因此可以在一年多的时间里更长、更安全地收集标本,并在整个收集过程中积累更多关于标本状况的知识,而不管当前的研究重点如何。该研究还包括对过去半个世纪内用熏蒸剂进行病例级害虫抑制的历史方法与其他两种相当大的记录进行经济比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Seeing is Believing, A Fourteen-Year Study on Efficacy and Economics of Visual Inspections to Protect A Large Mammal Collection from Insect Pests
In response to the cessation of use of in-case fumigants, from 1995–2009 the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History's Division of Mammals (DOM) applied a consistent voluntary visual inspection protocol over a period of 14 years. On average, per-case inspections required about 7 minutes. Inspections categorized case pest activity as clean, soiled, signs of life, and live insects. These categories compartmentalized levels of uncertainty about pest activity and directly led to remedial treatment and cleaning actions performed at a case level. Evidence of recurrent reinfestation led to case renovation or replacement. In order for an integrated pest management (IPM) method to be successful, it has to demonstrate a predatory efficacy better than the replacement and recruitment rates of the pests. With at most 1.5% of staff time devoted to IPM, case infestations of Thylodrias contractus (Motschulsky 1839) Coleoptera: Dermestidae and Necrobia rufipes (De Geer 1775) Coleoptera: Cleridae were lowered to near zero within 3 years. Rebound toward initial rates occurred after a forced 3-year hiatus in inspections and was similarly dealt with by a following round of inspections. The hourly investment of time is comparable with that of previous case repellant or fumigation regimes, but without the aggregated loss of access to collections during enclosure and out-gassing of fumigant, thus allowing longer and safer access to collections over a year, and instilling greater knowledge of specimen condition across the collection regardless of current research focus. The study also includes an economic comparison to historical methods of case level pest suppression with fumigants against two other comparably large collections documented within the last half century.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信