ArticleJournal of economic entomology2025
Field assessment of current and improved surveillance traps for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Australia.
Article in Journal of economic entomology, 2025. 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.
- Navigating uncertainty in museum workflows: genomic data mining and curation of the Diptera collections hosted at RMCA.Biodiversity data journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Exotic fruit fly (Diptera: Tephritidae) surveillance in Australia predominantly relies on male-lure trapping. We assessed the performance of 3 traps currently used in Australian fruit fly surveillance: Lynfield, Modified Steiner, and Paton; against 3 improved versions: Enhanced Steiner, Enhanced Paton, and Enhanced Paton-10 mm. Laboratory trials revealed existing traps failed to exclude rain, and drained poorly, which guided our trap modifications. These modified traps were field-tested across 2 seasons and 4 locations in tropical and subtropical areas, with trap efficacy measured by total flies trapped, quality of fly DNA by real-time PCR, and weatherability observations. During the dry season, the Enhanced Paton trap outperformed all other traps in terms of fruit fly catch rates, a trend that continued in the wet season. While there was no discernible variation in DNA quality among flies caught by the 6 trap types, wet trap contents negatively affected DNA quality, with the incidence of wet trap catches influenced by trap design. No wet flies were observed in the Enhanced Paton trap, a result of the modifications made, which included a 3° entrance tube with a 42° angled roof. Overall, the Enhanced Paton trap proved to be a superior alternative to existing designs, offering higher fly capture rates and better-quality specimens for both morphological and molecular identification.
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.