ArticlePloS one2024
Enhancing Buprestidae monitoring in Europe: Trap catches increase with a fluorescent yellow colour but not with the presence of decoys.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing trap design, lure, and color for monitoring Chrysobothris mali (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) in California walnut orchards.Environmental entomology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the efficacy of various traps differing in colour (green or yellow), presence or absence of decoys (dead Agrilus planipennis) or design (commercial MULTz or multifunnel traps, and homemade bottle- or fan-traps) for monitoring European Buprestidae in deciduous forests and pear orchards. Over two years, we collected 2220 samples on a two-week basis from 382 traps across 46 sites in Belgium and France. None of the traps proved effective for monitoring Agrilus sinuatus in infested pear orchards (17 specimens captured in 2021, 0 in 2022). The decoys did not affect the catch rates whatever the trap model, colour, buprestid species or sex. The fluorescent yellow traps (MULTz and yellow fan-traps) tended to be more attractive than the green traps (green fan-traps and, to a lower extent, multifunnel green traps). Most Agrilus species showed similar patterns in mean trap catches, with the exception of Agrilus biguttatus, which had the largest catches in the green multifunnel traps. Finally, we observed a high variation in catch rates between localities: the site explained 64% of the catches variance, while the tree within the site and the type of trap explained only 6-8.5% each. In many sites, we captured very few specimens, despite the abundance of dying mature trees favourable to the development of Buprestidae. For the early detection of non-native Buprestidae, it therefore seems essential to maximise the number of monitoring sites. Due to their cost-effectiveness, lightweight design, and modularity, fan-traps emerged as promising tools for buprestid monitoring. The study's findings extend beyond European fauna, as a preliminary trial in Canada suggested that yellow fan-traps could also improve captures of non-European buprestid species and catch species of interest such as Agrilus bilineatus (a species on the EPPO A2 list of pests/pathogens recommended for regulation in the EU).
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.