↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the impact of arthropod natural enemies on crop pests at the field scale

Overview of attention for article published in Insect Science, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing the impact of arthropod natural enemies on crop pests at the field scale
Published in
Insect Science, December 2014
DOI 10.1111/1744-7917.12174
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarina Macfadyen, Andrew P. Davies, Myron P. Zalucki

Abstract

There are many reasons why it is important that we find ways to conserve, and better utilize natural enemies of invertebrate crop pests. Currently, measures of natural enemy impact are rarely incorporated into studies that purport to examine pest control. Most studies examine pest and natural enemy presence and/or abundance and then qualitatively infer impact. While this provides useful data to address a range of ecological questions, a measure of impact is critical for guiding pest management decision-making. Often some very simple techniques can be used to obtain an estimate of natural enemy impact. We present examples of field-based studies that have used cages, barriers to restrict natural enemy or prey movement, direct observation of natural enemy attack, and sentinel prey items to estimate mortality. The measure of natural enemy impact used in each study needs to be tailored to the needs of farmers and the specific pest problems they face. For example, the magnitude of mortality attributed to natural enemies may be less important than the timing and consistency of that mortality between seasons. Tailoring impact assessments will lead to research outcomes that do not simply provide general information about how to conserve natural enemies, but how to use these natural enemies as an integral part of decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Malta 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 161 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 20%
Researcher 29 17%
Student > Master 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Other 20 12%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 94 56%
Environmental Science 17 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 5%
Mathematics 2 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 36 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2015.
All research outputs
#14,559,364
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Insect Science
#292
of 918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,019
of 371,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insect Science
#6
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 918 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,597 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.