ArticleScientific reports2025
Using mathematical modelling to highlight challenges in understanding trap counts obtained by a baited trap.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Baited traps are routinely used in many ecological and agricultural applications, in particular when information about pest insects is required. However, interpretation of trap counts is challenging, as consistent methods or algorithms relating trap counts to the population abundance in the area around the trap are largely missing. Thus, interpretation of trap counts is usually relative rather than absolute, i.e., a larger average trap count is regarded as an indication of a larger population. In this paper, we challenge this assumption. We show that the key missing point is the animal movement behaviour, which is known to be modified in the presence of attractant (bait), in particular being dependent on the attractant strength. Using an individual-based simulation model of animal movement, we show that an increase in trap counts can happen simply because of changes in the animal movement behaviour even when the population size is constant or even decreasing. Our simulation results are in good qualitative agreement with some available field data. We conclude that, unless reliable biological information about the dependence of animal movement pattern on the type and strength of attractant is available, an increase in trap counts can send a grossly misleading message, resulting in wrong conclusions about the pest population dynamics and hence inadequate conservation or pest management decisions.
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.