ArticleJournal of economic entomology2017
Evaluation of the Potential for Secondary Kill for Ingested Insecticides in the Common Bed Bug (Hemiptera: Cimicidae).
Article in Journal of economic entomology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Baits are a preferred method of urban pest management. Baits enable more targeted insecticide applications with a fraction of the active ingredient used in residual sprays. Bait translocation by foragers, and consequent secondary kill of nonforagers, enhances bait effectiveness in social insects, and in other group-living species like German cockroaches (Blattella germanica L.). We investigated the potential for secondary kill in bed bugs (Cimex lectularius L.), another gregarious species, using a liquid bait. We first investigated whether blood-fed adults enhance nymph survivorship within aggregations by increasing the local relative humidity (RH) and providing fecal nutrients. Higher RH (50% and 95%) resulted in greater survivorship of first instars compared with 0% RH. Therefore, in subsequent experiments, we controlled RH to decouple its effect on nymph survivorship from effects of fecal nutrients. The presence of fed or unfed adults did not increase unfed first instar survivorship, suggesting that if nymphs ingested feces, its nutritional benefits were minimal. Nymph survivorship was unaffected by the presence of adult males fed fipronil or clothianidin, suggesting that unlike in cockroaches, highly effective insecticides might not be effective as secondary kill toxicants in bed bugs. To directly compare secondary kill in first-instar bed bugs and B. germanica, we exposed both to insecticide-laden adult B. germanica feces. Whereas first-instar B. germanica died in the presence of insecticide-laden feces, bed bugs did not. We, therefore, conclude that secondary kill with neuroactive insecticides will likely not be a significant factor in bed bug population suppression.
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.