ArticlePest management science2025
A high-throughput and sensitive method for food preference assays in the argentine ant.
Article in Pest management science, 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.
- Palatability of insecticides and protein in sugar solutions to Argentine ants.Journal of pest science · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInsects pose significant challenges in both pest management and ecological conservation. Often, the most effective strategy is employing toxicant-laced baits, which also must be designed to specifically attract and be preferred by the targeted species for optimal species-specific effectiveness. However, traditional methods for measuring bait preference are either noncomparative, meaning that most animals only ever taste one bait, or suffer from methodological or conceptual limitations. Here we demonstrate the value of direct comparison food preference assays using the invasive and pest ant Linepithema humile (Mayr, 1868) as a model.
resultsWe compare the food preference sensitivity of noncomparative (one visit to a food source) and sequential comparative (visiting one type of food then another) assays at detecting low levels of aversive quinine in sucrose solution. We then introduce and test a novel dual-choice feeder method for simultaneous comparative evaluation of bait preferences, testing its effectiveness in discerning between foods with varying quinine or sucrose levels. The nonsequential assay could not detect aversion to 1.25 mm quinine in 1 m sucrose, yet the sequential comparative approach detected aversion to quinine levels as low as 0.94 mm. The novel dual feeder method approach could detect aversion to quinine levels as low as 0.31 mm, and also preference for 1 m sucrose over 0.75 m sucrose.
conclusionThe dual-feeder method combines the sensitivity of comparative evaluation with high throughput, ease of use and avoidance of interpretational issues. This innovative approach offers a promising tool for rapid and sensitive testing of bait solutions, contributing to the development of targeted control strategies. The method also could be easily extended to other ant species. © 2025 The Author(s). Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.
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.