Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36135472›Full record

ArticleInsects2022

Exclusion and Repulsion of

Eric C Burkness, Dominique N Ebbenga, Adam G Toninato, William D Hutchison

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insects, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eric C BurknessDepartment of Entomology, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Dominique N EbbengaDepartment of Entomology, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.
Adam G ToninatoDepartment of Entomology, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.
William D HutchisonDepartment of Entomology, University of Minnesota, 1980 Folwell Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA.
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

Rapid Agric. Response Fund, University of Minnesota, St Paul, MN, USA 00081823
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In temperate climates, there has been an increasing interest by fruit growers to implement the use of high tunnels, using a variety of coverings, to extend the season for fruit production. High tunnels also provide an opportunity to enhance insect pest management, via physical exclusion, and thus support reductions in insecticide use. Due to increasing pest pressure by the Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica Newman, in Midwest U.S. raspberry, a 3-year study (2017−2019) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of selected high tunnel coverings to suppress adult beetle populations and minimize adult feeding injury. During each year of the study, P. japonica adult beetles were significantly reduced under poly-based coverings, with the ends open, and when a fine, nylon-mesh was used to cover the ends (p < 0.05). The poly-based covering also resulted in moderately higher ambient temperatures, which may have influenced beetle movement, including a “repellency effect” that encouraged beetles to exit the high tunnel structures. Although P. japonica adults are known to feed on raspberry flower clusters, including fruit, the majority (73−92%) of beetle feeding in this study was observed on the foliage. The impact of high tunnels on P. japonica are discussed within the context of developing sustainable Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs for raspberry production.

Indexed as

high tunnelsintegrated pest management (IPM)pest exclusionraspberry

Identifiers

PMID36135472
PMCPMC9504422
OpenAlexW4293217580

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.