Paper · 1977 · Journal of Economic Entomology

Phagodeterrency Induced by Pure Gossypol and Leaf Extracts of a Cotton Strain with High Gossypol Content in the Larva of Spodoptera littoralis12

J. Meisner; K. R. S. Ascher; M. Zur

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
26
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The effect of pure gossypol or of extracts of a high gossypol cotton strain on the feeding rate of larvae of Spodoptera littoralis Boisduval was investigated by the ‘Styropor method.’ Styropor (foamed polystyrene) lamellae were painted on one side with 5% sucrose and on the other side with a solution of 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0.1% pure gossypol. One percent gossypol strongly suppressed feeding, and a negative correlation was found between the feeding rate on the lamellae and the concentration of gossypol. Larvae fed about half as much on lamellae painted with the leaf extract of a high-gossypol-content cotton strain (HG6-11-144) as on those painted with an exract of the glandless strain Acala 63-74.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

One percent gossypol strongly suppressed larval feeding.

Treatment
One percent gossypole0
Outcome
feedinge0
Direction
suppressede0

Not reportedInteractorComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton Strain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 64–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“One percent gossypol strongly suppressed feeding”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 343–391 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Larval feeding rate was negatively correlated with gossypol concentration.

Compound
gossypole0
Outcome
feeding ratee0
Direction
negative correlatione0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton Strain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 64–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“a negative correlation was found between the feeding rate on the lamellae and the concentration of gossypol”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 397–504 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Larvae fed about half as much on lamellae with HG6-11-144 leaf extract as on those with Acala 63-74 extract.

Material
HG6-11-144e0
Treatment
leaf extract of a high-gossypol-content cotton straine0
Outcome
Larvae fede0
Direction
half as muche0
Comparator
glandless strain Acala 63-74e0

Not reportedInteractor

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton Strain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 64–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“Larvae fed about half as much on lamellae painted with the leaf extract of a high-gossypol-content cotton strain (HG6-11-144) as on those painted with an exract of the glandless strain Acala 63-74.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 506–703 · show in text ↑

gossypol · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

botanical · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

31 papers: 28 positive, 3 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 papers →

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.