Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40260944›Full record

ArticleJournal of economic entomology2025

Field assessment of current and improved surveillance traps for fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) in Australia.

Geoffrey W Brown, Melissa L Starkie, Elizabeth V Fowler, Mark J Blacket, Jane E Royer, David G Mayer, Natalia M Souza, Jodie Cheesman, Brendan Missenden, Mitchell Irvine and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

11 authors.

Geoffrey W BrownQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-6180-7673
Melissa L StarkieQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.
Elizabeth V FowlerQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6767-9885
Mark J BlacketAgriculture Victoria Research, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7864-5712
Jane E RoyerQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.
David G MayerQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9564-9176
Natalia M SouzaQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0187-7798
Jodie CheesmanQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.
Brendan MissendenQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8147-0626
Mitchell IrvineQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-2338-8463
Mark K SchutzeQueensland Department of Primary Industries, Dutton Park, QLD, Australia.

Funding

Australian Federal GovernmentQueensland University of Technology
6 · The paper itself

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

Insect ControlTephritidaeAnimalsAustraliaFemaleMaleSeasonsDaciniLynfieldPatonreal-time PCRSteiner

Identifiers

PMID40260944
PMCPMC12167848

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.