Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34994055›Full record

ArticlePest management science2022

Fear effects on bank voles (Rodentia: Arvicolinae): testing for repellent candidates from predator volatiles.

Adrian Villalobos, Fredrik Schlyter, Göran Birgersson, Paweł Koteja, Magnus Löf

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pest management science, 2022. 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 30% 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, 4 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Adrian VillalobosSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lomma, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9922-1134
Fredrik SchlyterDepartment of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lomma, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1244-0308
Göran BirgerssonDepartment of Plant Protection Biology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lomma, Sweden.
Paweł KotejaInstitute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0077-4957
Magnus LöfSouthern Swedish Forest Research Centre, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lomma, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9173-2156
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences · SECzech University of Life Sciences Prague · CZJagiellonian University · PL

Funding

OP RDE at the Czech University of Life Sciences, PraguePolish National Science Centre grantSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArvicolinae rodents are known pests causing damage to both agricultural and forest crops. Today, rodenticides for rodent control are widely discouraged owing to their negative effects on the environment. Rodents are the main prey for several predators, and their complex olfactory system allows them to identify risks of predation. Therefore, the potential use of predators' scents as repellents has gained interest as an ecologically based rodent control method. In a two-choice experiment, we investigated the potential repellent effects of five synthetic predator compounds: 2-phenylethylamine (2-PEA), 2-propylthietane (2-PT), indole, heptanal and 2,5-dihydro-2,4,5-trimethylthiazoline (TMT), at 1% and 5% doses, using the bank vole (Myodes glareolus) as a rodent model.

resultsThe compound 2-PEA reduced both the food contacts and the time spent by voles in the treatment arm compared to the control arm. Likewise, 2-PT-treated arms reduced the food contacts, and the voles spent less time there, although this latter difference was not significant. Indole also showed a tendency to reduce the time spent at the treatment arm; however, this result was not significant. Unexpectedly, TMT had the reverse effect in showing attractive properties, possibly due to odor cues from differently sized predators and intraguild predation in nature. We found no dose-related effects for any compounds tested.

conclusionOur results suggest that the 2-PEA and 2-PT are both effective odor stimuli for triggering reduced food contacts and area avoidance, and they may be good repellent candidates. We suggest further testing of 2-PEA and 2-PT in field experiments to further determine their dose-efficiency as repellents against rodents in more natural environments. © 2022 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Indexed as

ArvicolinaeRodentiaAnimalsFearPheromonesPredatory BehaviorPheromonesarea avoidancebank voleforagingrepellentsrodent pest management

Identifiers

PMID34994055
PMCPMC9306653
OpenAlexW4206248520

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.