Abstract
Abstract: Thrips and thrips damage to cotton and peanut plants were compared in plots with in‐furrow treatments of aldicarb, phorate and diammonium phosphate (DAP) fertilizer under two tillage regimes with a winter cover of crimson clover and under different levels of rye residue ground cover. Adult and larval thrips numbers were significantly lower in cotton plots following winter crimson clover cultivation compared with no‐cover plots in all 3 years. Thrips numbers did not differ with respect to the in‐furrow treatments in the clover plots, but in the no‐cover plots, they were significantly higher in the untreated control and DAP treatments compared with the aldicarb treatment. Thrips damage was higher in the no‐cover than the clover plots except in the aldicarb treatments. Within the cover crop plots, thrips damage was highest in the control and phorate treatments and similar in the DAP and aldicarb treatments. There was an inverse relationship between the amount of rye residue ground cover and thrips density and thrips damage in cotton and peanuts. There was also an inverse relationship between the density of rye residue and damage to peanuts from Bunyaviridae tospovirus. Cotton yield was reduced in the cover crop plots and was not measured in the rye residue and peanut plots. These results suggest that ground cover alone decreases thrips numbers and thrips damage in both cotton and peanuts and that a winter crimson clover cover and an in‐furrow treatment of DAP enhanced plant protection from thrips in cotton.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
In cotton, adult and larval thrips numbers were significantly lower after winter crimson clover cultivation than in no-cover plots in all 3 years.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume2 - Treatment
- winter crimson clover cultivatione2
- Outcome
- Adult and larval thrips numberse2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Comparator
- no‐cover plotse2
ThripsOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Adult and larval thrips numbers were significantly lower in cotton plots following winter crimson clover cultivation compared with no‐cover plots in all 3 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Thrips numbers did not differ among in-furrow treatments in clover plots.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- in‐furrow treatmentse3
- Outcome
- Thrips numberse3
- Direction
- did not differe3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thrips and thrips damage to cotton and peanut plants were compared”
e3“Thrips numbers did not differ with respect to the in‐furrow treatments in the clover plots”
Claim · model-written summary
In no-cover plots, thrips numbers were significantly higher in untreated control and DAP treatments than in the aldicarb treatment.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- aldicarb treatmente4
- Outcome
- theye4
- Direction
- highere4
- Comparator
- untreated control and DAP treatmentse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thrips and thrips damage to cotton and peanut plants were compared”
e4“in the no‐cover plots, they were significantly higher in the untreated control and DAP treatments compared with the aldicarb treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Thrips damage was higher in no-cover than in clover plots, except in aldicarb treatments.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- clover plotse5
- Outcome
- Thrips damagee5
- Direction
- highere5
- Qualifier
- except in the aldicarb treatmentse5
- Comparator
- no‐covere5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thrips and thrips damage to cotton and peanut plants were compared”
e5“Thrips damage was higher in the no‐cover than the clover plots except in the aldicarb treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Within cover crop plots, thrips damage was highest in control and phorate treatments and similar in DAP and aldicarb treatments.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume1
- Treatment
- control and phorate treatmentse6
- Outcome
- thrips damagee6
- Direction
- higheste6
- Comparator
- DAP and aldicarb treatmentse6
- Setting
- cover crop plotse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Thrips and thrips damage to cotton and peanut plants were compared”
e6“Within the cover crop plots, thrips damage was highest in the control and phorate treatments and similar in the DAP and aldicarb treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Thrips density and thrips damage in cotton and peanuts were inversely related to the amount of rye residue ground cover.
- Taxon
- cotton and peanutsGossypium hirsutum
Arachis hypogaeae7 - Treatment
- rye residue ground covere7
- Outcome
- thrips density and thrips damagee7
- Direction
- inversee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“There was an inverse relationship between the amount of rye residue ground cover and thrips density and thrips damage in cotton and peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
Damage to peanuts from Bunyaviridae tospovirus was inversely related to the density of rye residue.
- Taxon
- peanutsArachis hypogaeae7
- Treatment
- density of rye residuee7
- Interactor
- Bunyaviridae tospoviruse7pathogen
- Outcome
- damage to peanutse7
- Direction
- inversee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“There was also an inverse relationship between the density of rye residue and damage to peanuts from Bunyaviridae tospovirus”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield was reduced in the cover crop plots.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutume7
- Treatment
- cover crop plotse7
- Outcome
- Cotton yielde7
- Direction
- reducede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Cotton yield was reduced in the cover crop plots and was not measured in the rye residue and peanut plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground cover alone is suggested to decrease thrips numbers and thrips damage in cotton and peanuts.
- Taxon
- cotton and peanutsGossypium hirsutumArachis hypogaeae7
- Treatment
- ground cover alonee7
- Outcome
- thrips numbers and thrips damagee7
- Direction
- decreasese7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“These results suggest that ground cover alone decreases thrips numbers and thrips damage in both cotton and peanuts”
Claim · model-written summary
A winter crimson clover cover and an in-furrow DAP treatment are suggested to enhance plant protection from thrips in cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume7
- Treatment
- a winter crimson clover cover and an in‐furrow treatment of DAPe7
- Outcome
- plant protection from thripse7
- Direction
- enhancede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“a winter crimson clover cover and an in‐furrow treatment of DAP enhanced plant protection from thrips in cotton”
The same questions in other papers
aldicarb · Thrips · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →cover crop · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 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.