ArticleScientific reports2025
Harnessing environmental microbiological interventions with micro- and macroorganisms for assessing cattle tick management.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Grass species and climatic season impact on Rhipicephalus microplus temporal abundance in a tropical region.Pest management science · 2026Article
- Advances in the use of entomopathogenic fungi to control ixodid ticks.Revista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria · 2026Review
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
Rhipicephalus microplus, commonly known as the cattle tick, is responsible for causing severe economic losses in livestock production in several countries. The utilization of entomopathogens in infested pastures may represent a sustainable and eco-friendly alternative for tick control. This study evaluated the effectiveness of combining entomopathogenic fungi (EPF, Metarhizium spp.) and entomopathogenic nematodes (EPN, Heterorhabditis bacteriophora) for controlling R. microplus. Laboratory assays tested sub-doses of M. robertsii IP 146 conidia in combination with H. bacteriophora HP88 infective juveniles against engorged females of R. microplus, whereas field trials assessed a granular formulation containing M. robertsii microsclerotia applied with H. bacteriophora infective juveniles in infested field plots to target the tick's non-parasitic phase during rainy and dry seasons. In laboratory experiments, the co-application of fungal sub-doses and nematodes demonstrated synergistic effects, significantly enhancing tick control. Field applications during the rainy season achieved tick population reductions of 54.09% (M. robertsii), 38.11% (H. bacteriophora), and 46.72% (combination). During the dry season, only the fungal formulation significantly reduced tick populations, with 26.27% efficacy. These findings underscore the potential of EPF and EPN, either singly or in combination, as complementary tools to traditional chemical methods for sustainable cattle tick management.
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.