Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
Since 1993, the annual worldwide cost of diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella (L. ) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), control has been routinely quoted to be US1 billion. This estimate requires updating and incorporation of yield losses to reflect current total costs of the pest to the world economy. We present an analysis that estimates what the present costs are likely to be based on a set of necessary, but reasoned, assumptions. We use an existing climate driven model for diamondback moth distribution and abundance, the Food and Agriculture Organization country Brassica crop production data and various management scenarios to bracket the cost estimates. The "length of the string" is somewhere between US1. 3 billion and US2. 3 billion based on management costs. However, if residual pest damage is included then the cost estimates will be even higher; a conservative estimate of 5% diamondback moth-induced yield loss to all crops adds another US2. 7 billion to the total costs associated with the pest. A conservative estimate of total costs associated with diamondback moth management is thus US4 billion-US5 billion. The lower bound represents rational decision making by pest managers based on diamondback moth abundance driven by climate only. The upper estimate is due to the more normal practice of weekly insecticide application to vegetable crops and the assumption that canola (Brassica napus L. ) is treated with insecticide at least once during the crop cycle. Readers can decide for themselves what the real cost is likely to be because we provide country data for further interpretation. Our analysis suggests that greater efforts at implementation of even basic integrated pest management would reduce insecticide inputs considerably, reducing negative environmental impacts and saving many hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Zalucki et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: