Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30687587›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Potential surrogate plants for use in semi-field pesticide risk assessment with

Andrew J Frewin, Angela E Gradish, Graham R Ansell, Cynthia D Scott-Dupree

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew J FrewinSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Angela E GradishSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Graham R AnsellSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Cynthia D Scott-DupreeSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
University of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrent regulatory pesticide risk assessments for bees are based primarily on the honey bee (

methodsWe compared ALB foraging activity and reproduction on 12 m

resultsAlthough ALB foraging activity was high on buckwheat plots, fewer adults were produced compared to alfalfa plots. On alfalfa, there were no differences in foraging activity, nesting, or reproduction between the low and high release rates. ALB readily foraged from purple tansy flowers, but females avoided purple tansy leaves for leaf cell construction. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that buckwheat alone cannot support ALB during semi-field studies on small plots. For alfalfa, we recommend a maximum release rate of 10♀/20♂ in 12 m

Indexed as

Non-apisRisk assessmentSemi-fieldSolitary bee

Identifiers

PMID30687587
PMCPMC6340348
OpenAlexW2909688265

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.