ArticlePest management science2026
Measure to manage - an integrated pest management metric for horticulture.
Article in Pest management 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntegrated pest management (IPM) is the primary global crop protection paradigm. Based around a broad range of techniques, it is a framework for the management of pests (animal pests, weeds, diseases) with the reduction of pesticides as a core function. For policy, research and technological stakeholders to effectively assess and support IPM programmes, it is necessary to quantify adoption at the farm level. This study quantifies adoption in four temperate countries (Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England) and explores potential influence from the wider systemic landscape. Quantification is through the application of a peer-reviewed horticultural IPM metric.
resultsThe average IPM score for the four countries analysed was 58 of 100 (range 5-100). Growers from England averaged highest (64 of 100) and displayed strong levels of adoption of the core IPM practices, suggesting that there are elements within the IPM landscape in England contributing to the systemic supports required for higher adoption at the farm level.
conclusionThis exploratory study is the first to apply a universal metric for horticulture to a multinational dataset. The assessment of results on a regional basis allows for the comparison of IPM adoption from national to farm level, establishing a transferable framework for longitudinal benchmarking. We conclude that the overarching operational realm in which growers function has the potential to positively influence how IPM is adopted in the field and that the context most favourable to success is informed and cognizant about IPM motivations and limitations at the grower level. © 2026 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.