Paper · 2012 · Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems

BIOLOGICAL EFFICACY AND SELECTIVITY OF ACARICIDES IN PAPAYA (Carica papaya L.)

Marycruz Abato-Zarate; Juan A. Villanueva-Jimenez; Gabriel Otero-Colina; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Mites are considered the second pest in importance in papaya (Carica papaya L.) in Veracruz, Mexico, caused by a general increment in pesticide use that might unbalance predatory populations. Efficacy of acaricides was evaluated against phytophagous mites, and their selectivity to predators in papaya cv. Maradol. A completely randomized block design with nine treatments and four replications was used. Significant differences (P = 0.005) were found in the number of phytophagous mites alive per leaf after the third weekly application. The lowest populations of pest mites per leaf (2.6, 3.9, 3.5 and 4.9) were observed in the following treatments: dicofol rotated with bifenthrin, paraffinic oil alone, sulphur powder alone and a weekly regime of fatty acid salts followed by paraffinic oil and azadirachtin 1.2%. Azadirachtin 1.2% alone had a lower efficacy than the previous group (5.8 mites per leaf), and the following pesticides were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the control (17.4 mites per leaf): fatty acids sprayed alone (6.7), azadirachtin 4.5% alone (9.5) and drenched imidacloprid (7.6). No differences were found among treatments in the number of predatory mites, possibly due to the low mite densities found.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pest mite numbers differed significantly among treatments after the third application.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Interactor
phytophagous mitese0pest
Outcome
number of phytophagous mites alive per leafe0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Significant differences (P = 0.005) were found in the number of phytophagous mites alive per leaf after the third weekly application.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 405–538 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dicofol rotated with bifenthrin gave 2.6 pest mites per leaf, among the lowest populations.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
dicofol rotated with bifenthrine0
Interactor
pest mitese0pest
Outcome
pest mites per leafe0
Direction
loweste0
Value
2.6e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The lowest populations of pest mites per leaf (2.6, 3.9, 3.5 and 4.9) were observed in the following treatments: dicofol rotated with bifenthrin, paraffinic oil alone, sulphur powder alone and a weekly regime of fatty acid salts followed by paraffinic oil and azadirachtin 1.2%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–817 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Paraffinic oil alone gave 3.9 pest mites per leaf, among the lowest populations.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
paraffinic oil alonee0
Interactor
pest mitese0pest
Outcome
pest mites per leafe0
Direction
loweste0
Value
3.9e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The lowest populations of pest mites per leaf (2.6, 3.9, 3.5 and 4.9) were observed in the following treatments: dicofol rotated with bifenthrin, paraffinic oil alone, sulphur powder alone and a weekly regime of fatty acid salts followed by paraffinic oil and azadirachtin 1.2%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–817 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sulphur powder alone gave 3.5 pest mites per leaf, among the lowest populations.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
sulphur powder alonee0
Interactor
pest mitese0pest
Outcome
pest mites per leafe0
Direction
loweste0
Value
3.5e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The lowest populations of pest mites per leaf (2.6, 3.9, 3.5 and 4.9) were observed in the following treatments: dicofol rotated with bifenthrin, paraffinic oil alone, sulphur powder alone and a weekly regime of fatty acid salts followed by paraffinic oil and azadirachtin 1.2%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–817 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fatty acid salts followed by paraffinic oil and azadirachtin 1.2% gave 4.9 pest mites per leaf, among the lowest populations.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
a weekly regime of fatty acid salts followed by paraffinic oil and azadirachtin 1.2%e0
Interactor
pest mitese0pest
Outcome
pest mites per leafe0
Direction
loweste0
Value
4.9e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The lowest populations of pest mites per leaf (2.6, 3.9, 3.5 and 4.9) were observed in the following treatments: dicofol rotated with bifenthrin, paraffinic oil alone, sulphur powder alone and a weekly regime of fatty acid salts followed by paraffinic oil and azadirachtin 1.2%.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–817 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azadirachtin 1.2% alone had lower efficacy, with 5.8 mites per leaf.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
Azadirachtin 1.2% alonee0
Interactor
mitese0pest
Outcome
efficacye0
Direction
lowere0
Value
5.8 mites per leafe0
Comparator
previous groupe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Azadirachtin 1.2% alone had a lower efficacy than the previous group (5.8 mites per leaf)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 818–907 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fatty acids alone did not differ significantly from control, with 6.7 mites per leaf.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
fatty acids sprayed alonee0
Interactor
mitese0pest
Outcome
mites per leafe0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Value
6.7e0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the following pesticides were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the control (17.4 mites per leaf): fatty acids sprayed alone (6.7), azadirachtin 4.5% alone (9.5) and drenched imidacloprid (7.6).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 913–1117 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Azadirachtin 4.5% alone did not differ significantly from control, with 9.5 mites per leaf.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
azadirachtin 4.5% alonee0
Interactor
mitese0pest
Outcome
mites per leafe0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Value
9.5e0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the following pesticides were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the control (17.4 mites per leaf): fatty acids sprayed alone (6.7), azadirachtin 4.5% alone (9.5) and drenched imidacloprid (7.6).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 913–1117 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Drenched imidacloprid did not differ significantly from control, with 7.6 mites per leaf.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Treatment
drenched imidaclopride0
Interactor
mitese0pest
Outcome
mites per leafe0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Value
7.6e0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the following pesticides were not significantly different (P > 0.05) than the control (17.4 mites per leaf): fatty acids sprayed alone (6.7), azadirachtin 4.5% alone (9.5) and drenched imidacloprid (7.6).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 913–1117 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predatory mite numbers did not differ among treatments.

Taxon
papayaCarica papayat0
Interactor
predatory mitese0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
number of predatory mitese0
Direction
No differencese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carica papaya
Carica papaya · TaxonCarlquist, Sherwin John, 1930-2021 · CC BY 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No differences were found among treatments in the number of predatory mites, possibly due to the low mite densities found.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1118–1240 · show in text ↑
t0

“PAPAYA”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 53–59 · show in text ↑

dicofol · pest · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

bifenthrin · pest · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

sulfur atom · pest · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

fatty acid · pest · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

azadirachtin · pest · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

azadirachtin · control · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

imidacloprid · pest · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. no effect
See all 2 papers →

rotation · pest · Carica papaya (papaya)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.