Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42835674›Full record

ReviewEco-Environment & Health2026

Biopesticides vs conventional synthetic pesticides: A multidimensional evaluation of impacts on agricultural productivity and environmental health.

Weitao Wang, Sarah J Knight, Yannan Zhou, Karin Müller, Jinshu Chi, Melanie Kah

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eco-Environment & Health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Weitao WangThe School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand.
Sarah J KnightThe School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand.
Yannan ZhouThrust of Smart Manufacturing, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, 511453, China.
Karin MüllerNew Zealand Institute for Bioeconomy Science Limited, Plant & Food Research, Auckland, 1025, New Zealand.
Jinshu ChiEarth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences Thrust, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), Guangzhou, 511453, China.
Melanie KahThe School of Environment, The University of Auckland, Auckland, 1010, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern agriculture relies on conventional synthetic pesticides (CP) that negatively impact our environment. Derived from natural materials, biopesticides (BP) have been proposed as eco-friendly alternatives. However, there has not been a critical analysis comparing CP and BP across multiple metrics. This work systematically and quantitatively compares the agricultural productivity (efficacy, yield, and revenue) of CP and BP as well as their impacts on environmental health (non-target organisms, soil fertility, and greenhouse gas emissions) relative to untreated controls. On average, CP agronomic performance is superior (48% for BP vs 56% for CP of efficacy; 17% for BP vs 19% for CP of yield improvement), but the gap is relatively small. More than 30% of existing studies report higher efficacy and yield improvements for BP compared to CP. In addition, BP are associated with environmental benefits, including reduced non-target animal mortality (24% for BP vs 56% for CP). This work recognizes the diversity of BP and identifies key research gaps that currently hinder the broader development and adoption of alternatives to CP that could support more sustainable agricultural production.

Indexed as

BiopesticidesEfficacyEnvironmental impactsQuantitative comparisonSynthetic pesticides

Identifiers

PMID42835674
PMCPMC13635564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.