ArticleScientific reports2024
Field evaluation of electrophysiologically-active dung volatiles as chemical lures for trapping of dung beetles.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerrado ash reduces volatile emissions from faeces but does not influence the olfactory responses of the dung beetles.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2025Article
- Coconut rhinoceros beetle digestive symbiosis with potential plant cell wall degrading microbes.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Dung beetles are economically important beneficial insects that process dung. To locate this source, they use volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The objectives of the study were to evaluate the attractiveness of ten electrophysiologically-active dung volatiles (phenol, skatole, indole, p-cresol, butanone, butyric acid, eucalyptol, dimethyl sulphide, dimethyl disulphide, and toluene) to dung beetles in the field and to investigate how the composition of volatile blends influences efficacy as lures for use in traps. Six combinations of the compounds were compared with field collected cattle dung bait and a negative control, across three seasons. Both dung and synthetic baits captured all exotic dung beetle species present in the study area. A six-compound mix (M1), comprising major dung volatiles, served as an attractive chemical mixture. The addition of dimethyl sulphide, dimethyl disulphide (M2) and toluene (M4) enhanced attractancy of M1 for dung beetles, while eucalyptol (M3) decreased the attractancy. The degree of attraction by various dung beetle species to synthetic baits varied, but baits proved to be effective, especially for summer trapping. The trap design used in this study presented a convenient and practical way to sample dung beetle and other associated scarabs from open pastures. The attraction of introduced dung beetle species to synthetic baits is documented here for the first time in Australia. In addition, necrophagous Omorgus sp. is reported here for the first time to be attracted to synthetic baits. They showed a significant attraction to the mixture containing dimethyl sulphide and dimethyl disulphide (M2). The current study represents a promising first step towards formulating a synthetic chemical lure for dung beetles, offering a consistent, standardised, and bio-secure trapping method compared to use of naturally occurring dung baits, especially as a multi-species lure.
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.