Comparison of Different Trap Designs for Capture of Noctuid Moths (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) With Pheromone and Floral Odor Attractants.

Six trap designs were assessed for capturing noctuid moths in field trials in the United Kingdom and Argentina. The traps were baited with either a sex pheromone for Autographa gamma in the UK trials and Helicoverpa gelotopoeon (Dyar) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Argentina, or a floral odor blend. In the UK trials the Universal Trap and a funnel sleeve trap were compared; in Argentina the funnel sleeve trap, a homemade bucket trap, and (L.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) three sticky traps: LepTrap, wing trap, and delta trap were compared. Comparisons were made between the traps and attractants and captures of noctuid moths and nontarget insects. Traps baited with the floral attractant caught a lower number but a wider range of noctuid species including Helicoverpa, Spodoptera, Rachiplusia, Dargida, Mythimna, Chrysodeixis, Agrotis, and Autographa spp., and nontarget insects. In the UK trials, the funnel sleeve trap caught significantly more A. gamma than the Universal Trap. The addition of an insecticide to the Universal Trap marginally increased trap catches. In the Argentinian trials, the homemade bucket and the sleeve traps outperformed all sticky traps in most situations regardless of crop environment and attractant type. The homemade bucket and the funnel sleeve traps are also considerably cheaper than the other trap designs. Of the sticky traps the LepTrap caught more noctuids than the wing and delta traps. The results suggest that the bucket trap and the sleeve trap have a much greater maximum capacity and possibly a greater retention efficiency for noctuid moths compared to the sticky traps.

Inter-pregnancy interval and risk of recurrent pre-eclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women with a history of pre-eclampsia have a higher risk of developing pre-eclampsia in subsequent pregnancies. However, the role of the inter-pregnancy interval on this association is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of inter-pregnancy interval on the risk of recurrent pre-eclampsia or eclampia. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS were searched (inception to July 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohort studies assessing the risk of recurrent pre-eclampsia in the immediate subsequent pregnancy according to different birth intervals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, methodological and quality assessment. Meta-analysis of adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) was used to measure the association between various interval lengths and recurrent pre-eclampsia or eclampsia. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 1769 articles and finally included four studies with a total of 77,561 women. The meta-analysis of two studies showed that compared to inter-pregnancy intervals of 2-4 years, the aOR for recurrent pre-eclampsia was 1.01 [95 % CI 0.95 to 1.07, I(2) 0 %] with intervals of less than 2 years and 1.10 [95 % CI 1.02 to 1.19, I(2) 0 %] with intervals longer than 4 years. CONCLUSION: Compared to inter-pregnancy intervals of 2 to 4 years, shorter intervals are not associated with an increased risk of recurrent pre-eclampsia but longer intervals appear to increase the risk. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution as included studies are observational and thus subject to possible confounding factors.