Paper · 1997 · Environmental Entomology

Dynamics of Common Green Lacewing (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) in Israeli Cotton Fields in Relation to Whitefly (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) Populations

Dan Gerling; Vasily Kravchenko; Michael Lazare

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
18
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Population fluctuations of the common green lacewing, Chrysoperla carnea Stephens, and those of the sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius), were followed for 4 yr in cotton, Gossypium hirsutum L., fields in Israel. Samples were taken and insecticidal controls were applied to determine the importance of C. carnea as a controlling factor of Bemisia in cotton. The results showed that although the lacewings occurred in the field together with Bemisia and their larvae fed on Bemisia nymphs, C. carnea was not an efficient controlling agent of whiteflies. This lack of efficiency probably was related to behavioral preferences of the predator as well as to its nutritional demands that were met only marginally by feeding on whiteflies. Application of the insecticide monocrotophos often resulted in an increase in lacewing egg populations. Influence of other insecticides on the eggs and larvae was often detrimental.

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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lacewing larvae fed on whitefly nymphs in cotton fields.

Interactor
BemisiaBemisiae0pest
Second interactor
lacewingsNeuropterae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
larvae fed on Bemisia nymphse0
Setting
fielde0

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 ↗
Bemisia
Bemisia · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Stephen Ausmus · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“the lacewings occurred in the field together with Bemisia and their larvae fed on Bemisia nymphs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 403–499 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

C. carnea was not an efficient whitefly control agent in cotton.

Interactor
whitefliesAleyrodoideae0pest
Second interactor
C. carneaChrysoperla carneae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
controlling agent of whitefliese0

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 ↗
Chrysoperla carnea
Chrysoperla carnea · Second interactorDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“C. carnea was not an efficient controlling agent of whiteflies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 501–563 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The authors linked poor lacewing efficacy to predator behavior and marginal nutrition from whiteflies.

Interactor
whitefliesAleyrodoideae0pest
Outcome
lack of efficiencye0
Qualifier
behavioral preferences of the predatore0

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”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“This lack of efficiency probably was related to behavioral preferences of the predator as well as to its nutritional demands that were met only marginally by feeding on whiteflies”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 565–744 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Monocrotophos application often increased lacewing egg populations.

Treatment
insecticide monocrotophose0
Interactor
lacewinge0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
lacewing egg populationse0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

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”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“Application of the insecticide monocrotophos often resulted in an increase in lacewing egg populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–848 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Other insecticides were often detrimental to lacewing eggs and larvae.

Treatment
other insecticidese0
Outcome
eggs and larvaee0
Direction
detrimentale0

Not reportedComparator

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”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
e0

“Influence of other insecticides on the eggs and larvae was often detrimental”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 850–926 · show in text ↑

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

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

insecticide · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

76 papers: 51 positive, 25 negative or no effect

50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

72 papers more in this group

See all 76 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.