ReviewInsects2022
Competition: A Missing Component of Fruit Fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) Risk Assessment and Planning.
Review in Insects, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insecticidal Activity ofInsects · 2026Article
- Effect of male age at the time of irradiation on the sexual performance of sterile Ceratitis capitata males: insights from remating female offspring.Insect science · 2026Article
- Morphometric and molecular insights intoFrontiers in insect science · 2026Article
- The Potential Risk ofInsects · 2025Review
- Comparative adult preference-larval performance relationship between a specialist and a generalist tephritid: Implication for predicting field host-range.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
- Development and Metabolomic Profiles ofInsects · 2024Article
- Review
- Synthesis of Phthalimide Derivatives and Their Insecticidal Activity against Caribbean Fruit Fly,Biomolecules · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Tephritid fruit flies are internationally significant pests of horticulture. Because they are also highly invasive and of major quarantine concern, significant effort is placed in developing full or partial pest risk assessments (PRAs) for fruit flies, while large investments can be made for their control. Competition between fruit fly species, driven by the need to access and utilise fruit for larval development, has long been recognised by researchers as a fundamental component of fruit fly biology, but is entirely absent from the fruit fly PRA literature and appears not be considered in major initiative planning. First presenting a summary of the research data which documents fruit fly competition, this paper then identifies four major effects of fruit fly competition that could impact a PRA or large-scale initiative: (i) numerical reduction of an existing fruit fly pest species following competitive displacement by an invasive fruit fly; (ii) displacement of a less competitive fruit fly pest species in space, time or host; (iii) ecological resistance to fruit fly invasion in regions already with competitively dominant fruit fly species; and (iv) lesser-pest fruit fly resurgence following control of a competitively superior species. From these four major topics, six more detailed issues are identified, with each of these illustrated by hypothetical, but realistic biosecurity scenarios from Australia/New Zealand and Europe. The scenarios identify that the effects of fruit fly competition might both positively or negatively affect the predicted impacts of an invasive fruit fly or targeted fruit fly control initiative. Competition as a modifier of fruit fly risk needs to be recognised by policy makers and incorporated into fruit fly PRAs and major investment initiatives.
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.