Replication defines reliability – A meta-analysis of aerial insecticide effects on forest arthropods

IF 3.7 2区农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY

Forest Ecology and Management Pub Date : 2025-09-17 DOI:10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123169

Frederik Stein , Rico Fischer , Nadine Bräsicke

{"title":"Replication defines reliability – A meta-analysis of aerial insecticide effects on forest arthropods","authors":"Frederik Stein , Rico Fischer , Nadine Bräsicke","doi":"10.1016/j.foreco.2025.123169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Aerial insecticide application is considered a last-resort measure to prevent tree mortality and stand dieback from insects and is thus an important tool for maintaining forest ecosystem services, particularly in the face of global warming. However, concerns have been raised about the potential adverse side effects of insecticide applications in forests on arthropods. Further contributing to the ongoing debate are several studies that have reported effects that diverge from predictions based on known insecticide properties and application techniques. Yet the empirical evidence for such unpredictable toxic effects remains inconsistent, presumably due to an inadequate study design.</div><div>Here, we provide a systematic meta-analysis of 22 studies on the side effects of aerial applied insecticide, that are currently authorized by German plant protection agencies. In only five studies, we confirmed the employment of true replication; in the remaining 17 studies, we could not exclude the possibility of pseudoreplication. In studies with true replication, we found that, on average, 94 % of the statistically analyzed non-target arthropod study groups responded as predicted. By contrast, only 64 % of responses aligned with these predictable toxic effects in studies lacking true replication. Our findings suggest that the empirical basis of the reported unpredictable toxic effects may not be robust due to inappropriate study design, particularly with respect to replication.</div><div>We provide guidance on incorporating true replication into field design, and recommend appropriate data pooling strategies in statistical analysis to avoid temporal and sacrificial pseudoreplication—both essential for generating reliable and interpretable results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12350,"journal":{"name":"Forest Ecology and Management","volume":"597 ","pages":"Article 123169"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forest Ecology and Management","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112725006772","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aerial insecticide application is considered a last-resort measure to prevent tree mortality and stand dieback from insects and is thus an important tool for maintaining forest ecosystem services, particularly in the face of global warming. However, concerns have been raised about the potential adverse side effects of insecticide applications in forests on arthropods. Further contributing to the ongoing debate are several studies that have reported effects that diverge from predictions based on known insecticide properties and application techniques. Yet the empirical evidence for such unpredictable toxic effects remains inconsistent, presumably due to an inadequate study design.

Here, we provide a systematic meta-analysis of 22 studies on the side effects of aerial applied insecticide, that are currently authorized by German plant protection agencies. In only five studies, we confirmed the employment of true replication; in the remaining 17 studies, we could not exclude the possibility of pseudoreplication. In studies with true replication, we found that, on average, 94 % of the statistically analyzed non-target arthropod study groups responded as predicted. By contrast, only 64 % of responses aligned with these predictable toxic effects in studies lacking true replication. Our findings suggest that the empirical basis of the reported unpredictable toxic effects may not be robust due to inappropriate study design, particularly with respect to replication.

We provide guidance on incorporating true replication into field design, and recommend appropriate data pooling strategies in statistical analysis to avoid temporal and sacrificial pseudoreplication—both essential for generating reliable and interpretable results.

查看原文本刊更多论文

重复性定义可靠性——一项关于空中杀虫剂对森林节肢动物影响的meta分析

空中施用杀虫剂被认为是防止树木死亡和林分因昆虫而枯死的最后手段，因此是维持森林生态系统服务的重要工具，特别是在面对全球变暖的情况下。然而，人们对森林中使用杀虫剂对节肢动物的潜在不良副作用表示关注。一些研究报告的影响与基于已知杀虫剂特性和应用技术的预测不同，这进一步加剧了正在进行的辩论。然而，这种不可预测的毒性效应的经验证据仍然不一致，可能是由于研究设计不充分。在这里，我们对22项关于空中施用杀虫剂副作用的研究进行了系统的荟萃分析，这些研究目前已获得德国植物保护机构的批准。在仅有的5项研究中，我们证实了真实复制的使用；在剩下的17项研究中，我们不能排除假复制的可能性。在真实复制的研究中，我们发现，在统计分析的非目标节肢动物研究组中，平均有94% %的反应与预测一致。相比之下，在缺乏真正复制的研究中，只有64% %的反应与这些可预测的毒性作用一致。我们的研究结果表明，由于不适当的研究设计，特别是在复制方面，报告的不可预测的毒性效应的经验基础可能不可靠。我们提供了将真实复制纳入现场设计的指导，并建议在统计分析中采用适当的数据池策略，以避免时间和牺牲性的假复制，这对于生成可靠和可解释的结果至关重要。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Forest Ecology and Management 农林科学-林学

CiteScore

7.50

自引率

10.80%

发文量

665

审稿时长

39 days

期刊介绍： Forest Ecology and Management publishes scientific articles linking forest ecology with forest management, focusing on the application of biological, ecological and social knowledge to the management and conservation of plantations and natural forests. The scope of the journal includes all forest ecosystems of the world. A peer-review process ensures the quality and international interest of the manuscripts accepted for publication. The journal encourages communication between scientists in disparate fields who share a common interest in ecology and forest management, bridging the gap between research workers and forest managers. We encourage submission of papers that will have the strongest interest and value to the Journal''s international readership. Some key features of papers with strong interest include: 1. Clear connections between the ecology and management of forests; 2. Novel ideas or approaches to important challenges in forest ecology and management; 3. Studies that address a population of interest beyond the scale of single research sites, Three key points in the design of forest experiments, Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 2022-2023); 4. Review Articles on timely, important topics. Authors are welcome to contact one of the editors to discuss the suitability of a potential review manuscript. The Journal encourages proposals for special issues examining important areas of forest ecology and management. Potential guest editors should contact any of the Editors to begin discussions about topics, potential papers, and other details.