ReviewEnvironmental evidence2025
Investigating the effects of the main agronomic interventions on carabids and spiders in European arable fields: A systematic review protocol.
Review in Environmental evidence, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDesigning agroecological cropping systems enhancing functional biodiversity and natural pest regulations requires understanding the ecological processes involved, specifically regarding the response of generalist predators. A more precise knowledge of the changes in ground-dwelling communities implied by individual agronomic interventions is needed to make enlightened and consistent choices in the design of such innovative cropping systems. A recent systematic map showed that fertilization, tillage, pesticides use, grazing and mowing are the most studied agronomic interventions regarding their effects on arthropods. The direct and indirect effects of disturbances induced by agronomic interventions on ground-dwelling arthropods in arable fields have been widely investigated, especially for carabids and spiders. However, there is not always a clear pattern outstanding, probably due to antagonistic responses of species with different functional traits. Here, we propose a quantified synthesis on this topic. We will show the impact of the main agronomic interventions in arable fields on the two most studied ground-dwelling predator groups, carabids and spiders, and compare their response (abundance, species richness, taxonomic and functional diversity) in different contexts (crop types and production methods). We will investigate contrasting responses at different taxonomic levels depending on functional traits.
methodsThe evidence will be identified from the recent systematic map on the impacts of agricultural management practices on biodiversity indicator species groups published in 2024. We will select all studies reporting the effect of the most studied agronomic interventions (fertilization, tillage, pesticide application, mowing and grazing) in arable fields (arable crops and temporary grasslands) on carabids and spiders in the map database. A search update will be performed using the search strings used for the systematic map for carabids and spiders, and extracted references will be sorted at title, abstract and full text levels according to the topic of the present work. All selected studies will be critically appraised and a low, medium, or high risk of bias will be assigned to each study. The synthesis of the data extracted from the studies will be first narrative (using qualitative data), and then quantitative for those with adequate data for a meta-analysis.
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.