ArticleJournal of chemical ecology2014
Manipulating feeding stimulation to protect crops against insect pests?
Article in Journal of chemical ecology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Field investigation of glucosinolates and morphological traits in mitigating Psylliodes chrysocephala larval infestation through crop varieties and companion planting.Pest management science · 2026Article
- Seedling resistance and chemical defenses against Psylliodes chrysocephala: the roles of seed age and sinapinic acid in Sinapis alba and Brassica napus.Pest management science · 2026Article
- S-Methyl-l-Cysteine Sulfoxide: A Hidden Layer of Defences Against Herbivorous Insects in Brassicaceae.Plant, cell & environment · 2025Article
- PhytochemicalOpen biology · 2024Article
- Perspectives for integrated insect pest protection in oilseed rape breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022Review
- Non-target Effects of Hyperthermostable α-Amylase TransgenicFrontiers in plant science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Enhancing natural mechanisms of plant defense against herbivores is one of the possible strategies to protect cultivated species against insect pests. Host plant feeding stimulation, which results from phagostimulant and phagodeterrent effects of both primary and secondary metabolites, could play a key role in levels of damage caused to crop plants. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the feeding intensity of the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus on six oilseed rape (Brassica napus) genotypes in a feeding experiment, and by assessing the content of possible phagostimulant and phagodeterrent compounds in tissues targeted by the insect (flower buds). For this purpose, several dozens of primary and secondary metabolites were quantified by a set of chromatographic techniques. Intergenotypic variability was found both in the feeding experiment and in the metabolic profile of plant tissues. Biochemical composition of the perianth was in particular highly correlated with insect damage. Only a few compounds explained this correlation, among which was sucrose, known to be highly phagostimulating. Further testing is needed to validate the suggested impact of the specific compounds we have identified. Nevertheless, our results open the way for a crop protection strategy based on artificial selection of key determinants of insect feeding stimulation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.