ArticleScientific reports2024
Toward a push-pull strategy against invasive snails using chemical and visual stimuli.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Four invasive Mediterranean snails, i.e., Theba pisana (Müller, 1774), Cernuella virgata (da Costa, 1778), Cochlicella acuta (Müller, 1774) and Cochlicella barbara (Linnaeus, 1758) cost $170 million yearly to the grain industry in Australia. Their impact is mainly due to their estivation behavior: snails climb on cereal and legume stalks to rest during summer, which coincides with harvest, causing grain contamination issues in crops such as wheat, barley and canola. Diverse management methods have been developed to regulate snail populations, with limited success. Our study investigates the potential for a push-pull strategy to divert invasive snails from cultivated fields. A "push" part (i.e. using a repellent stimuli) was based on the use of a chemical deterrent repelling snails from the cultivated field, and a "pull" part (i.e. using an attractive stimuli) was based on offering attractive estivation supports for snails to aggregate outside the cultivated field. First, artificial estivation supports of different colors were tested under laboratory and field conditions and showed that red supports were the most attractive for these snails. Second, different substances were tested as potential snail deterrents (garlic, coffee, coffee grounds, copper). Garlic extracts were the most powerful snail deterrent and were shown to effectively protect an estivation support and food source from snails under laboratory conditions. These results, which were highly consistent for the four species, illustrate the potential of a push-pull strategy against invasive snails in Australia. It is the first attempt to develop a push-pull strategy relying on both visual and chemical stimuli to achieve results, as well as manipulating the estivation behavior of a pest.
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.