Paper · 1972 · Experimental Agriculture

Overhead Application of Fungicide for the Control of Coffee Berry Disease

J. L. Pereira; H. R. Mapother

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

Abstract

SUMMARY Comparison of an overhead boom sprayer (Monica Mist) with a conventional air-assisted sprayer (Conomist) showed that the former gave relatively poor cover, but control of coffee berry disease (CBD) was equally good with both machines. It is suggested that the success of overhead spraying is dependent upon effective redistribution of fungicide within the tree canopy during rain.

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 resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The overhead sprayer gave poorer cover than the air-assisted sprayer.

Taxon
CoffeeCoffeat0
Treatment
overhead boom sprayere0
Outcome
covere0
Direction
poore0
Comparator
conventional air-assisted sprayere0

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

Coffea
Coffea · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Marcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Comparison of an overhead boom sprayer (Monica Mist) with a conventional air-assisted sprayer (Conomist) showed that the former gave relatively poor cover”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 8–162 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffee”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Both sprayers controlled coffee berry disease equally well.

Taxon
CoffeeCoffeat0
Treatment
overhead boom sprayere0
Outcome
control of coffee berry disease (CBD)e0
Direction
equally goode0
Comparator
conventional air-assisted sprayere0

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

Coffea
Coffea · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Marcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Comparison of an overhead boom sprayer (Monica Mist) with a conventional air-assisted sprayer (Conomist) showed that the former gave relatively poor cover, but control of coffee berry disease (CBD) was equally good with both machines”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 8–241 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffee”

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

Claim · model-written summary

Authors suggested rain-driven redistribution of fungicide explains overhead spraying success.

Taxon
CoffeeCoffeat0
Outcome
success of overhead sprayinge0
Qualifier
effective redistribution of fungicide within the tree canopy during raine0

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

Coffea
Coffea · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Marcelo Corrêa · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the success of overhead spraying is dependent upon effective redistribution of fungicide within the tree canopy during rain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 264–387 · show in text ↑
t0

“Coffee”

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

application · control · Coffea (coffee)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

application · growth · Coffea (coffee)Positive and negative results

12 papers: 7 positive, 5 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 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.