ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2026
Integrating landscape ecology into generic surveillance plans for bark- and wood-boring beetles.
Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stand and Landscape Drivers of Trap Captures of the Pine Wilt Disease VectorEcology and evolution · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrating landscape ecology into generic surveillance plans for bark- and wood-boring beetles.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
International trade poses a growing threat to global biosecurity, with bark- and wood-boring beetles representing a major concern for forest health. Non-native species are frequently introduced at points of entry, where populations can establish in the surrounding landscape. To improve early detection, generic surveillance programs use traps in these high-risk areas, collecting a broad spectrum of species. These traps also capture native beetles, providing insights into the potential species pool that could become exotic elsewhere. However, implementing effective landscape-wide surveillance within reasonable resource limits remains challenging. In this study, we used trapping data of Cerambycidae and Scolytinae from 11 high-risk areas across Europe and North America to develop practical recommendations for generic surveillance at multiple spatial scales. Specifically, we attempted to address two key questions: (1) how to maximize the single-trap efficacy depending on the trap surroundings; and (2) how many traps should be used in a landscape-wide sampling depending on landscape composition. Under budget constraints, we recommend prioritizing trap placement within forest patches and avoiding locations surrounded by roads or buildings. Urban-dominated landscapes required greater sampling effort (i.e., more traps) than forest-dominated landscapes. Deploying fewer than four traps per square kilometer might lead to an incomplete representation of the local bark- and wood-boring beetle community, losing about 30%-50% of species. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of incorporating landscape ecology into generic surveillance planning to optimize trap effectiveness within resource limitations.
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.