Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36972276›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

From the dual cyclone harvest performance of single conidium powder to the effect of Metarhizium anisopliae on the management of Thaumastocoris peregrinus (Hemiptera: Thaumastocoridae).

Simone Graziele Moio Velozo, Murilo Rodrigues Velozo, Maurício Magalhães Domingues, Luciane Katarine Becchi, Vanessa Rafaela de Carvalho, José Raimundo de Souza Passos, José Cola Zanuncio, José Eduardo Serrão, Dietrich Stephan, Carlos Frederico Wilcken

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Simone Graziele Moio VelozoFaculdade de Ciências Agronômicas, Laboratório de Controle Biológico de Pragas Florestais, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brasil.
Murilo Rodrigues VelozoSyntech Research, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brasil.
Maurício Magalhães DominguesFaculdade de Ciências Agronômicas, Laboratório de Controle Biológico de Pragas Florestais, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0001-9026-578X
Luciane Katarine BecchiFaculdade de Ciências Agronômicas, Laboratório de Controle Biológico de Pragas Florestais, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0001-7646-9110
Vanessa Rafaela de CarvalhoFaculdade de Ciências Agronômicas, Laboratório de Controle Biológico de Pragas Florestais, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brasil.
José Raimundo de Souza PassosDepartamento de Bioestatística, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brasil.
José Cola ZanuncioDepartamento de Entomologia/BIOAGRO, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brasil.
José Eduardo SerrãoDepartamento de Biologia Geral, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-0477-4252
Dietrich StephanJulius Kühn-Institut, Institute for Biological Control, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Darmstadt, Germany.
Carlos Frederico WilckenFaculdade de Ciências Agronômicas, Laboratório de Controle Biológico de Pragas Florestais, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Botucatu, São Paulo, Brasil.
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversidade Federal de Viçosa · BRJulius Kühn-Institut · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insect pests introduced in eucalyptus plantations in Brazil are mostly of Australian origin, but native microorganisms have potential for their management. High quality biopesticide production based on entomopathogenic fungi depends on adequate technologies. The objective of this study was to evaluate Mycoharvester® equipment to harvest and separating particles to obtain pure Metarhizium anisopliae conidia to manage Thaumastocoris peregrinus Carpintero & Dellapé, 2006 (Hemiptera: Thaumastocoridae). The Mycoharvester® version 5b harvested and separated M. anisopliae spores. The pure conidia were suspended in Tween 80® (0.1%) and calibrated to the concentrations of 1 x 106, 107, 108 and 109 conidia/ml to evaluate the pathogenicity, lethal concentration 50 and 90 (LC50, LC90) and lethal time 50 and 90 (LT50, LT90) of this fungus to T. peregrinus. This equipment harvested 85% of the conidia from rice, with production of 4.8 ± 0.38 x 109 conidia/g dry mass of substrate + fungus. The water content of 6.36% of the single spore powder (pure conidia) separated by the Mycoharvester® was lower than that of the agglomerated product. The product harvested at the concentrations of 108 and 109 conidia/ml caused high mortality to T. peregrinus third instar nymphs and adults. The separation of conidia produced by solid-state fermentation with the Mycoharvester® is an important step toward optimizing the fungal production system of pure conidia, and to formulate biopesticides for insect pest management.

Indexed as

Cyclonic StormsHeteropteraMetarhiziumAnimalsAustraliaPest Control, BiologicalPowdersSpores, FungalPowders

Identifiers

PMID36972276
PMCPMC10042367
OpenAlexW4361017408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read76
identifiers read6
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.