Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40003768›Full record

ReviewInsects2025

Botanical Antifeedants: An Alternative Approach to Pest Control.

Roman Pavela, Kateřina Kovaříková, Matěj Novák

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insects, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Roman PavelaCzech Agrifood Research Center, Drnovská 507, 161 06 Prague 6, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-7866-4278
Kateřina KovaříkováCzech Agrifood Research Center, Drnovská 507, 161 06 Prague 6, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-8024-5803
Matěj NovákCzech Agrifood Research Center, Drnovská 507, 161 06 Prague 6, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant protection against phytophagous pests still largely relies on the application of synthetic insecticides, which can lead to environmental and health risks that are further exacerbated by the development of resistant pest populations. These are the driving forces behind the current trend of research and the development of new ecological insecticides. The mode of action does not have to rely exclusively on acute or chronic toxicity. Another promising approach is the use of plant antifeedants, which can significantly reduce the food intake of phytophagous insects. However, the information on antifeedant substances has not yet been sufficiently evaluated. The aim of this review was to find the most promising plants that provide potent extracts, essential oils (EOs), or isolated compounds with antifeedant properties. The selection was based on a comparison of effective concentrations or doses. Effective extracts were obtained from 85 plant species belonging to 35 families and the EOs came from 38 aromatic plant species from 11 families. Based on the results,

Indexed as

antifeedant activitycompoundsessential oilspestsphytophagousplant extracts

Identifiers

PMID40003768
PMCPMC11855740

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.