ArticlePeerJ2020
Repurposing a traditional Japanese method of pest control for wintering pine moths, Komo-trap, for use against summer and winter populations of fall webworms.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Effects of midgut bacteria in Hyphantria cunea (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) on nuclear polyhedrosis virus and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bacillales: Bacillaceae).Journal of insect science (Online) · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe fall webworm,
methodsIn two seasons of 2017, we set komo-traps on street trees in Hakodate City, Japan. We counted the numbers of captured fall webworms compared with controls. We also monitored other species to evaluate any nontarget effects of the trap.
resultsOne komo, the material cost of which is about 1.10 USD, captured 43.8 fall webworms on average in summer and 27.2 in the fall. The values were significantly larger than those of the controls, which were 0.07 in summer and 0.14 in winter. Bycatch of other species was minimal in summer, whereas in the fall one komo, on average, caught 10.7 woodlice DISCUSSION: The komo-trap is effective in capturing fall webworm. The cost performance of the trap is very favorable, and the nontarget effects can be reduced by using the trap in summer only. The komo-trap would complement other control methods such as tree pruning. Because its cost is low, we recommend that the komo-trap be introduced as a larger-scale trial.
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.