ReviewEco-Environment & Health2026
Biopesticides vs conventional synthetic pesticides: A multidimensional evaluation of impacts on agricultural productivity and environmental health.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.