Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biological control of the diamondback moth,Plutella xylostella: A review

Open access
Sarfraz, Muhammad, Keddie, Andrew B, Dosdall, Lloyd M·2005·Biocontrol Science and Technology

Abstract

The diamondback moth (DBM), Plutella xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae), is one of the most destructive cosmopolitan insect pests of brassicaceous crops. It was the first crop insect reported to be resistant to DDT and now, in many crucifer producing regions, it has shown significant resistance to almost every synthetic insecticide applied in the field. In certain parts of the world, economical production of crucifers has become almost impossible due to insecticidal control failures. Consequently, increased efforts worldwide have been undertaken to develop integrated pest management (IPM) programs, principally based on manipulation of its natural enemies. Although over 130 parasitoid species are known to attack various life stages of DBM, most control worldwide is achieved by relatively few hymenopteran species belonging to the ichneumonid genera Diadegma and Diadromus, the braconid genera Microplitis and Cotesia, and the eulophid genus Oomyzus. DBM populations native to different regions have genetic and biological differences, and specific parasitoid strains may be associated with the specific DBM strains. Therefore, accurate identification based on genetic studies of both host and parasitoid is of crucial importance to attaining successful control of DBM through inoculative or inundative releases. Although parasitoids of DBM larvae and pupae are currently its principal regulators, bacteria-derived products (e.g., crystal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis) and myco-insecticides principally based on Zoophthora radicans and Beauveria bassiana are increasingly being applied or investigated for biological control. Viruses, nematodes and microsporidia also have potential as biopesticides for DBM. When an insect pest is exposed to more than one mortality factor, there is the possibility of interactions that can enhance, limit, or limit and enhance the various aspects of effectiveness of a particular control tactic. This paper reviews the effectiveness of various parasitoids and entomopathogens against DBM, interactions among them, and their possible integration into modern IPM programs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09583150500136956

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Cited by

See all 268

Metadata

Authors
Sarfraz, M., Keddie, A. B., & Dosdall, L. M.
Venue
Biocontrol Science and Technology
Published
2005-12
Volume
15
Issue
8
Pages
763-789
ISSN
  • 0958-3157 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0478
OpenAlex
W1232544390
Cited by
268
References
40
FWCI
8.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biological control of the diamondback moth,Plutella xylostella: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09583150500136956
The paper
Sarfraz, M., Keddie, A. B., & Dosdall, L. M. (2005). Biological control of the diamondback moth,Plutella xylostella: A review. Biocontrol Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/09583150500136956

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.