Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32500500›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020

An update of the Worldwide Integrated Assessment (WIA) on systemic pesticides. Part 4: Alternatives in major cropping systems.

Andrea Veres, Kris A G Wyckhuys, Jozsef Kiss, Ferenc Tóth, Giovanni Burgio, Xavier Pons, Carlos Avilla, Stefan Vidal, Jaka Razinger, Renata Bazok and 13 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 99 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. IPM reduces insecticide applications by 95% while maintaining or enhancing crop yields through wild pollinator conservation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  20. 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

23 authors at 20 institutions in 15 countries.

Andrea VeresDepartment of Integrated Plant Protection / Plant Protection Institute, Szent István University (SZIE), Páter Károly út 1, Gödöllő, 2103, Hungary.
Kris A G WyckhuysChina Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jozsef KissDepartment of Integrated Plant Protection / Plant Protection Institute, Szent István University (SZIE), Páter Károly út 1, Gödöllő, 2103, Hungary.
Ferenc TóthDepartment of Integrated Plant Protection / Plant Protection Institute, Szent István University (SZIE), Páter Károly út 1, Gödöllő, 2103, Hungary.
Giovanni BurgioDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna (UNIBO), Bologna, Italy.
Xavier PonsUniversity of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
Carlos AvillaUniversity of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Stefan VidalDepartment of Crop Sciences/Agricultural Entomology, Georg-August-University, Göttingen, Germany.
Jaka RazingerAgricultural Institute of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Renata BazokDepartment for Agricultural Zoology, University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture, Zagreb, Croatia.
Ewa MatyjaszczykInstitute of Plant Protection - National Research Institute, Poznań, Poland.
Ivan MilosavljevićDepartment of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA.
Xuan Vi LePlant Protection Research Institute, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Wenwu ZhouInstitute of Insect Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Zeng-Rong ZhuInstitute of Insect Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China.
Hagus TarnoBrawijaya University, Malang, Indonesia.
Buyung HadiIRRI Cambodia Office, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Jonathan LundgrenEcdysis Foundation, Estelline, USA.
Jean-Marc BonmatinCentre de Biophysique Moléculaire, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Orléans, France.
Maarten Bijleveld van LexmondIUCN, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Alexandre AebiLaboratory of Soil Biodiversity, Institute of Ethnology, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Aunu RaufBogor Agricultural University, Bogor, Indonesia.
Lorenzo FurlanAgricultural Research Department, Veneto Agricoltura, Legnaro, Italy. lorenzo.furlan@venetoagricoltura.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4021-4532
Magyar Agrár- és Élettudományi Egyetem · HUZhejiang University · CNAgricultural institute of Slovenia · SIASIS Foundation · USCambodia Development Resource Institute · KHCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRInstitute of Plant Protection · PLInternational Union for Conservation of Nature · CHIPB University · IDIstituto Sperimentale per la Frutticoltura · ITThe University of Queensland · AUUniversidad de Sevilla · ESUniversitat de Lleida · ESUniversity of Bologna · ITUniversity of Brawijaya · IDUniversity of California, Riverside · USUniversity of Göttingen · DEUniversity of Neuchâtel · CHUniversity of Zagreb · HRVietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences · VN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a synthetic review and expert consultation that assesses the actual risks posed by arthropod pests in four major crops, identifies targets for integrated pest management (IPM) in terms of cultivated land needing pest control and gauges the implementation "readiness" of non-chemical alternatives. Our assessment focuses on the world's primary target pests for neonicotinoid-based management: western corn rootworm (WCR, Diabrotica virgifera virgifera) in maize; wireworms (Agriotes spp.) in maize and winter wheat; bird cherry-oat aphid (Rhopalosiphum padi) in winter wheat; brown planthopper (BPH, Nilaparvata lugens) in rice; cotton aphid (Aphis gossypii) and silver-leaf whitefly (SLW, Bemisia tabaci) in cotton. First, we queried scientific literature databases and consulted experts from different countries in Europe, North America, and Asia about available IPM tools for each crop-pest system. Next, using an online survey, we quantitatively assessed the economic relevance of target pests by compiling country-level records of crop damage, yield impacts, extent of insecticide usage, and "readiness" status of various pest management alternatives (i.e., research, plot-scale validation, grower-uptake). Biological control received considerable scientific attention, while agronomic strategies (e.g., crop rotation), insurance schemes, decision support systems (DSS), and innovative pesticide application modes were listed as key alternatives. Our study identifies opportunities to advance applied research, IPM technology validation, and grower education to halt or drastically reduce our over-reliance on systemic insecticides globally.

Indexed as

InsecticidesPesticidesAnimalsAsiaEuropeNeonicotinoidsNorth AmericaInsecticidesNeonicotinoidsPesticidesAgricultural policyAphidsBiological controlBrown planthopperIPMNeonicotinoidsSoil pestsWhitefly

Identifiers

PMID32500500
PMCPMC7378116
OpenAlexW3033723206

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.