ArticlePloS one2019
Effects of restricting movement between root and canopy populations of woolly apple aphid.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Movement of insect pests between spatially subdivided populations can allow them to recolonize areas where local extinction has occurred, increasing pest persistence. Populations of woolly apple aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum [Hausmann]; Hemiptera: Aphididae), a worldwide pest of apple (Malus domestica [Borkhausen]), occur both below- and aboveground. These spatially subdivided subpopulations encounter different abiotic conditions, natural enemies, and control tactics. Restricting movement between them might be an effective management tactic to decrease woolly apple aphid persistence and abundance. We examined this possibility in the field, using sticky barriers to restrict upward woolly apple aphid movement to tree canopies, and in the greenhouse, using mulches and sand amendments to restrict downward movement to roots. In the field, blocking aphid movement up tree trunks did not decrease the number of colonies in tree canopies. Instead, sticky-banded apple trees had higher aphid colony counts late in the study. Earwigs, which are woolly apple aphid predators, were excluded from tree canopies by sticky bands. In the greenhouse, fewer root galls (indicative of aphid feeding) occurred on trees in sandy potting media and on those with mulch (wood chips or paper slurry). Our results suggest that upward movement is less important than other factors that affect aboveground aerial woolly apple aphid population dynamics. In addition, apple orchards planted in sandier soils or with mulches may be partially protected from woolly apple aphid root feeding.
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.