SynthesisPest management science2026
How effective are entomopathogenic nematodes for vine weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) biological control? A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pest management science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVine weevil (Otiorhynchus sulcatus) is a globally important pest of soft fruit and ornamental crops with larvae causing significant root damage. Entomopathogenic nematodes (EPNs) have emerged as a key biological control option for larvae following restrictions on synthetic chemical insecticides, but their reported efficacy varies considerably across studies. This variability has created uncertainty about EPN effectiveness and optimal deployment strategies, limiting evidence-based recommendations for growers.
resultsAcross 162 comparisons from 23 studies, EPN applications significantly reduced vine weevil larval survival compared to untreated controls (Hedges' g = -1.60, 95% CI -1.85 to -1.36), equivalent to ≈63% fewer live larvae. All five EPN species tested (Steinernema carpocapsae, S. feltiae, S. kraussei, Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, H. megidis) were effective, with no significant differences among species. However, between-study heterogeneity was high (I
conclusionEPNs provide reliable biological control of vine weevil larvae under field and semi-field conditions, with effectiveness enhanced by warmer soil temperatures and protected growing environments. Although average effects are large and consistent, practitioners should expect considerable variability in outcomes and prioritise applications during warm conditions in protected environments where feasible. A lack of robust differences among species suggests that selection can be based on practical considerations such as cost and availability. © 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.