Semiochemicals, semiophysicals and their integration for the development of innovative multi-modal systems for agricultural pests’ monitoring and control

4openInternationalSemiochemicals are informative molecules emitted by living organisms that affect the behavior of receivers. As herbivorous insects are primarily thought to depend on olfaction and taste for their intra- and interspecific communication, semiochemicals have been widely studied for pest management applications. However, given that pest behavior does not rely on just one communication modality, stimuli of physical nature, such as light, sounds and vibrations, can also be used to manipulate insect-insect or insect-plant interactions. Moreover, stimuli of different natures can be combined in a multi-modal pest management program to increase the overall efficacy. Besides the widespread use of both chemical and physical signals in multimodal insect communication, the integration of stimuli has hardly been implemented for hardly any crop. This review introduces the term semiophysicals as opposed to semiochemicals and focuses on pest behavioral manipulation by discussing three main approaches; i) manipulation of pest orientation through attractive/repellent stimuli, ii) inhibition or promotion of specific pest behaviors and iii) interference with intraspecific communication through disruptive stimuli. For each approach, we provide examples of use of both semiochemicals and semiophysicals. Lastly, we describe the case study of the vineyard agroecosystem in the Trento province, where a multi-pest management program has been successfully developed, and we discuss future perspectives.openNieri, R.; Anfora, G.; Mazzoni, V.; Rossi Stacconi, M.V.Nieri, R.; Anfora, G.; Mazzoni, V.; Rossi Stacconi, M.V

Smile esthetic evaluation of mucogingival reconstructive surgery

To assess the difference in smile esthetic impact of Coronally Advanced Flap (CAF) with or without the adjunct of a collagen matrix (CMX) used as root coverage procedures. Subjects with esthetic demands showing multiple upper gingival recessions of at least 2 mm, without interproximal attachment loss and cervical abrasion no more than 1 mm were recruited and randomized to CAF plus CMX or CAF alone. The Smile Esthetic Index (SEI) was adopted to quantify the quality of the smile recorded at baseline and 12 months after treatment for each treatment group. In addition, between group difference in the SEI was calculated. 24 Patients were treated and analysed. At baseline, mean gingival recession depths were 2.3 ± 0.7 mm for Test group and 2.6 ± 1.0 mm for Control group. After 1 year, the residual recession depth was 0.3 ± 0.4 mm in the CAF + CMX group and 0.6 ± 0.3 mm in the control group. The SEI at baseline was 8.1 ± 1.0 and 7.9 ± 0.7 for Test and Control group, respectively. The between groups difference at 12 months in SEI was 0.4 (95% C.I. − 0.0 to 0.8, P = 0.0697). Twelve months after treatment, CAF + CMX provided a similar SEI compared to CAF alone and the adjunct of a collagen matrix did not show a different impact on the smile esthetic appearance