IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i5p2920-d762730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combined Searches of Chinese Language and English Language Databases Provide More Comprehensive Data on the Distribution of Five Pest Thrips Species in China for Use in Pest Risk Assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Bingqin Xu

    (The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Private Bag 92169, Auckland 1142, New Zealand)

  • David A. J. Teulon

    (The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited, Private Bag 4704, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
    Better Border Biosecurity (B3), Private Bag 4704, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand)

Abstract

Background: Globally, China and the USA are thought to present the greatest biosecurity threat from invasive species given the invasive species they already contain and their trade patterns. A proportion of Chinese scientific publications are published in Chinese language journals in Chinese characters, thus, they are not easily available to the international biosecurity community. Information in these journals may be important for invasive species biosecurity risk assessment. Methods: To assess the need for retrieving information from non-international databases, such as Chinese databases, we compared quantitative and qualitative information on the presence and distribution of five invasive pest thrips species ( Frankliniella schultzei , Selenothrips rubrocinctus , Scirtothrips dorsalis , Thrips hawaiiensis , and Thrips palmi ) in China, retrieved from an international English language database (Web of Science/WOS) and a Chinese language database (Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure/CNKI). Such information is necessary for climate matching models which are used regularly for pest risk assessment. Results: Few publications on Frankliniella schultzei were found in either database. For the other species, more publications were sourced from CNKI than WOS. More publications on the provincial distribution of S. rubrocinctus and S. dorsalis in China were found in CNKI than the Crop Protection Compendium (CPC); the two sources had equivalent publications on T. palmi and T. hawaiiensis . The combined provincial distributional data from WOS, CNKI and CPC for the four species provided distribution records at a higher latitude than a recently published checklist—information that is important for optimised climate matching. Additionally, CNKI provided sub-provincial distributional data not available in CPC that will enable a more refined approach for climate matching. Data on the relative proportion of publications found in different databases were constant over time. Conclusions: This study, focusing on pest distributional data, illustrates the importance of searching in Chinese databases in combination with standard searches in international databases, to gain a comprehensive understanding of invasive species for biosecurity risk assessment.

Suggested Citation

  • Bingqin Xu & David A. J. Teulon, 2022. "Combined Searches of Chinese Language and English Language Databases Provide More Comprehensive Data on the Distribution of Five Pest Thrips Species in China for Use in Pest Risk Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2920-:d:762730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2920/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/5/2920/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yishan Wu & Yuntao Pan & Yuhua Zhang & Zheng Ma & Jingan Pang & Hong Guo & Bo Xu & Zhiqing Yang, 2004. "China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations (CSTPC): History, impact and outlook," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(3), pages 385-397, August.
    2. Fei Shu & Charles‐Antoine Julien & Vincent Larivière, 2019. "Does the web of science accurately represent chinese scientific performance?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(10), pages 1138-1152, October.
    3. Ping Zhou & Loet Leydesdorff, 2007. "A comparison between the China Scientific and Technical Papers and Citations Database and the Science Citation Index in terms of journal hierarchies and interjournal citation relations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(2), pages 223-236, January.
    4. David Cyranoski, 2019. "China splashes millions on hundreds of home-grown journals," Nature, Nature, vol. 576(7787), pages 346-347, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. S. Hennemann & T. Wang & I. Liefner, 2011. "Measuring regional science networks in China: a comparison of international and domestic bibliographic data sources," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 535-554, August.
    2. Fei Shu & Wen Lou & Stefanie Haustein, 2018. "Can Twitter increase the visibility of Chinese publications?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 505-519, July.
    3. Ping Zhou & Loet Leydesdorff, 2007. "The citation impacts and citation environments of Chinese journals in mathematics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(2), pages 185-200, August.
    4. Vanessa Sandoval-Romero & Vincent Larivière, 2020. "The national system of researchers in Mexico: implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 99-126, January.
    5. Gregory J Hather & Winston Haynes & Roger Higdon & Natali Kolker & Elizabeth A Stewart & Peter Arzberger & Patrick Chain & Dawn Field & B Robert Franza & Biaoyang Lin & Folker Meyer & Vural Ozdemir & , 2010. "The United States of America and Scientific Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(8), pages 1-9, August.
    6. Han Woo Park & Loet Leydesdorff, 2008. "Korean journals in the Science Citation Index: What do they reveal about the intellectual structure of S&T in Korea?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 75(3), pages 439-462, June.
    7. Olga Moskaleva & Vladimir Pislyakov & Ivan Sterligov & Mark Akoev & Svetlana Shabanova, 2018. "Russian Index of Science Citation: Overview and review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 449-462, July.
    8. Yu, Liping & Shen, Xiaoming & Pan, Yuntao & Wu, Yishan, 2009. "Scholarly journal evaluation based on panel data analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 312-320.
    9. N. Kurakova & L. Tsvetkova & O. Eremchenko., 2013. "Scientometric Parameters of Russian Economic Science: General State and the Evaluation of Thesis Boards," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 11.
    10. Guijie Zhang & Luning Liu & Fangfang Wei, 2019. "Key nodes mining in the inventor–author knowledge diffusion network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 721-735, March.
    11. Liang, Wenyan & Gu, Jun & Nyland, Chris, 2022. "China's new research evaluation policy: Evidence from economics faculty of Elite Chinese universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    12. Claude Robert & Concepción S. Wilson & Jean-François Gaudy & Charles-Daniel Arreto, 2007. "The evolution of the sleep science literature over 30 years: A bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(2), pages 231-256, November.
    13. Liang, Liming & Rousseau, Ronald, 2007. "Transformations of basic publication–citation matrices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 249-255.
    14. Loet Leydesdorff & Caroline Wagner, 2009. "Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 78(1), pages 23-36, January.
    15. Tianwei He & Wei Liu, 2009. "The internationalization of Chinese scientific journals: A quantitative comparison of three chemical journals from China, England and Japan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 583-593, September.
    16. Chan-Yuan Wong & Kim-Leng Goh, 2012. "The pathway of development: science and technology of NIEs and selected Asian emerging economies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(3), pages 523-548, September.
    17. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Peter Haddawy, 2015. "Analyzing knowledge flows of scientific literature through semantic links: a case study in the field of energy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(1), pages 33-46, April.
    18. Saeed-Ul Hassan & Peter Haddawy, 2013. "Measuring international knowledge flows and scholarly impact of scientific research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 163-179, January.
    19. Shuhua Wang & Hengjun Wang & Paul R. Weldon, 2007. "Bibliometric analysis of English-language academic journals of China and their internationalization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 73(3), pages 331-343, December.
    20. Jiyuan Ye, 2014. "Development, significance and background information about the “Chinese Book Citation Index” (CBkCI) demonstration database," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 557-564, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:5:p:2920-:d:762730. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.