Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23192330›Full record

ReviewExperimental & applied acarology2013

A review of the status of the coconut mite, Aceria guerreronis (Acari: Eriophyidae), a major tropical mite pest.

Denise Navia, Manoel Guedes Correa Gondim, Nayanie S Aratchige, Gilberto José de Moraes

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental & applied acarology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Volatile Metabolomic Composition ofFrontiers in plant science · 2017
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Integrating ecology and genetics to address Acari invasions.Experimental & applied acarology · 2013
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Denise NaviaEmbrapa Recursos Genéticos e Biotecnologia, Parque Estação Biológica, final W5 Norte, Asa Norte, Brasília, DF 70770-917, Brazil. denise.navia@embrapa.br
Manoel Guedes Correa Gondim
Nayanie S Aratchige
Gilberto José de Moraes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coconut mite (CM), Aceria guerreronis Keifer, has spread to most coconut production areas worldwide and it has been considered one of the most notorious and important pests of coconut fruits in many countries. Although CM has been reported to damage coconuts for over 40 years in the Americas and Africa it continues to cause considerable losses in countries of these continents, and in the last 15 years it has also reached countries from southeast Asia-India and Sri Lanka. Several other countries of southeast Asia are also major coconut producers and the impact by the mite in currently affected areas suggests that the dispersion of CM to these major producers could lead to very heavy losses. Great advances about our knowledge on CM and its control have been achieved, especially in the last decade, after its introduction into Asia. However, much remains to be known to allow the design of efficient strategies to it. This paper brings together information on CM invasive history, distribution, hosts, morphology, biology, dispersal, colonization process, population dynamics, symptoms and injury, estimated losses, sampling techniques, control strategies and new perspectives for its control.

Indexed as

CocosHerbivoryIntroduced SpeciesPest ControlAnimal DistributionAnimalsFood ChainMitesPopulation DynamicsTropical Climate

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.