Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32021689›Full record

ArticleMovement ecology2020

Movement behaviour of two social urticating caterpillars in opposite hemispheres.

Mizuki Uemura, Lynda E Perkins, Myron P Zalucki, Andrea Battisti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Movement ecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The sensory ecology of caterpillars.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Quantification of Urticating Setae of Oak Processionary Moth (International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Occupational Exposure of Forest Workers to the Urticating Setae of the Pine Processionary MothInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  5. Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2023
    Article
  6. 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.

Mizuki Uemura1Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Padova, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8473-5084
Lynda E Perkins2School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072 Australia.
Myron P Zalucki2School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072 Australia.
Andrea Battisti1Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro, Padova, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInvestigating movement ecology of organisms has economic, societal, and conservation benefits. Larval movement of insects for example, plays many significant ecological roles, and with the expansion of the human population and development, encounters and conflicts with insects have increased. Urticating caterpillars are a health concern to people and animals, especially when they disperse in a gregarious and synchronised manner in areas frequented by humans.

methodsEach year from March to May,

resultsIn the morning,

conclusionsThe amount of human contact is surprising and alarming, because of the serious health implications they cause to humans and animals. The processionary dispersal on the ground risks further spread of urticating hairs that can be easily detached, and particular during inadvertent contact. Our limited sample size of

Indexed as

AustraliaEuropeLepidopteraMedical importanceOchrogaster luniferProcessionary caterpillarsPupation siteThaumetopoea pityocampa

Identifiers

PMID32021689
PMCPMC6995145

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.