↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Pest Control Advisers in Preventative Management of Grapevine Trunk Diseases.

Overview of attention for article published in Phytopathology, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
41 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.
Article details
Title
The Role of Pest Control Advisers in Preventative Management of Grapevine Trunk Diseases.
Published in
Phytopathology, March 2016
DOI 10.1094/phyto-10-15-0250-r
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Vineyards with trunk diseases (Botryosphaeria dieback, Esca, Eutypa dieback, Phomopsis dieback) can have negative returns in the long run. Minimizing economic impacts depends on effective management, but adopting a preventative practice after infection occurs may not improve yields. Pest control advisers may reduce grower uncertainty about the efficacy of and need for prevention, which often entails future and unobservable benefits. Here, we surveyed advisers in California to examine their influence over grower decision-making, in the context of trunk diseases, which significantly limit grape production and for which curative practices are unavailable. Our online survey revealed adviser awareness of high disease incidence, and reduced yields and vineyard lifespan. Advisers rated both preventative and post-infection practices positively. Despite higher cost estimates given to post-infection practices, advisers did not recommend preventative practices at higher rates. High recommendation rates were instead correlated with high disease incidence for both preventative and post-infection practices. Recommendation rates declined with increasing cost for preventative, but not for post-infection, practices. Our findings suggest that even when advisers acknowledge the risks of trunk diseases, they may not recommend preventative practices before infection occurs. This underscores the importance of clear outreach, emphasizing both the need for prevention and its long-term cost-efficacy.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Student > Master 8 20%
Researcher 8 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 9 22%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 51%
Environmental Science 4 10%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 May 2016.
All research outputs
#8,170,649
of 27,651,521 outputs
Outputs from Phytopathology
#911
of 3,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,322
of 316,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Phytopathology
#7
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,651,521 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 316,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.