ArticleInsect science2026
A preventive strategy for the control of aphids in sweet pepper using lacewings and micrococcinelid beetles.
Article in Insect science, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Aphids are a serious threat to sweet pepper crops. Due to increasing aphid resistance to insecticides and rising demand for pesticide-free products, pest management is currently based on biological control programs. However, growers often face economic losses because these programs have limited success, largely due to poor establishment of natural enemies when aphid populations are low. This study aimed to evaluate new natural enemies for early-season aphid control. Two candidates were selected to be used against the aphid Myzus persicae (Sulzer) (Hemiptera: Aphididae): the micrococcinellid Scymnus interruptus (Goeze) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and the brown lacewing Micromus variegatus (Fabricius) (Neuroptera: Hemerobiidae). Two studies were conducted to assess their potential as aphid biocontrol agents. Firstly, different alternative food sources that might help for supporting their establishment in the absence of aphids were tested. Secondly, in a greenhouse experiment conducted in walk-in cages, natural enemies were released under preventive conditions (long aphid absence). Their establishment, complementarity, and effectiveness were evaluated during 5 weeks, after periodical low aphid infestations. Our results exposed that supplemental food sources must be provided for the survival of M. variegatus when aphids are absent in the crop. However, S. interruptus could survive in absence of aphids in the presence of sweet pepper flowers for a long period. Our greenhouse trial showed S. interruptus provided better aphid control than M. variegatus but the best results came from combining both species. Overall, our study demonstrated the potential of M. variegatus and S. interruptus as preventive biocontrol agents against aphids in sweet pepper crops.
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.