Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36526865›Full record

ReviewAnimal cognition2023

Clever pest control? The role of cognition in biological pest regulation.

Deyatima Ghosh, Elizabeth A John, Anna Wilkinson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal cognition, 2023. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Deyatima GhoshDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Elizabeth A JohnDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Anna WilkinsonDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK. awilkinson@lincoln.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4500-0181

Funding

Rufford Foundation 34363-B
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Crop pest management is a global challenge. Increases in agricultural intensity due to anthropogenic demands, alongside the need to reduce the reliance on pesticides to minimize environmental harm, have resulted in an urgent need to improve and expand other methods of pest control. One increasingly utilized method is biological pest control, in which natural pest predators are used to regulating crop pests. Current approaches to biological pest regulation assess the importance of a pest controller by examining its ability to maintain pest populations over an extended period. However, this approach lacks efficiency, specificity, and efficacy because it does not take into account crucial factors which determine how predators find, evaluate and remember food sources-the cognitive processes underlying their behavior. This review will investigate the cognitive factors involved in biological pest control and examine how these factors may be manipulated to impact pest behavior and pest controller performance.

Indexed as

CognitionPest Control, BiologicalAgricultureAnimalsBiological pest controlCognitionEcosystem servicesLearningPest management

Identifiers

PMID36526865
PMCPMC9877098

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.