Abstract
Pyrethroid and endosulfan mixtures applied at full and reduced rates with 3 application methods (air-assisted electrostatic, air-assisted hydraulic, and standard hydraulic sprayers) were evaluated in field studies in 1992 and 1993 for control of sweetpotato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci strain B (Gennadius), also known as silverleaf whitefly, Bemisia argentifolii Bellows & Perring, and spray deposition on cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L. Evaluations of sweetpotato whitefly control were based on adult suppression, immature colonization, and cauliflower harvests. Spray deposition and coverage on abaxial and adaxial leaf surfaces was measured with a leaf wash technique and water sensitive cards placed on leaves near the terminal and base of plants. Depending on how control was assessed, the air-assisted electrostatic application technique did not consistently improve sweetpotato control when compared with hydraulic application equipment. Based on adult suppression, improved control of whiteflies was achieved with full and reduced rates of the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer following 2 applications in 1992, but percentage of reduction of adults did not differ significantly among the application methods when full rates of insecticide were applied in 1993. Control based on immature colonization indicated that the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer was the only spray method to reduce significantly nymph densities when compared with the control in 1992, but differences in numbers of eggs, nymphs, and eclosed pupal cases varied among application methods and rates of active ingredient in 1993. Comparisons of cauliflower harvest dates indicated that the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer did not provide significantly better control than the other application methods when used at similar rates. Spray deposition with the airassisted electrostatic application technique was variable throughout these studies with no clear trends being observed. Our results suggest the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer may offer a means to control sweetpotato whitefly with a 50% reduction in insecticide usage.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Electrostatic application did not consistently improve whitefly control versus hydraulic equipment.
- Taxon
- cauliflower
Brassica oleracea var. botrytise1 - Treatment
- air-assisted electrostatic application techniquee0
- Outcome
- sweetpotato controle0
- Direction
- did not consistently improvee0
- Comparator
- hydraulic application equipmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the air-assisted electrostatic application technique did not consistently improve sweetpotato control when compared with hydraulic application equipment”
e1“cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Electrostatic spraying at full and reduced rates improved adult whitefly control after two applications in 1992.
- Taxon
- cauliflowerBrassica oleracea var. botrytise1
- Treatment
- full and reduced rates of the air-assisted electrostatic sprayere0
- Interactor
- whitefliesAleyrodoideae0pest
- Outcome
- control of whitefliese0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Qualifier
- following 2 applications in 1992e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“improved control of whiteflies was achieved with full and reduced rates of the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer following 2 applications in 1992”
e1“cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Adult whitefly reduction did not differ significantly among methods at full rates in 1993.
- Taxon
- cauliflowerBrassica oleracea var. botrytise1
- Treatment
- application methodse0
- Outcome
- percentage of reduction of adultse0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Qualifier
- full rates of insecticide were applied in 1993e0
- Comparator
- among the application methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“percentage of reduction of adults did not differ significantly among the application methods when full rates of insecticide were applied in 1993”
e1“cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Electrostatic spraying alone significantly reduced nymph densities against control in 1992.
- Taxon
- cauliflowerBrassica oleracea var. botrytise1
- Treatment
- air-assisted electrostatic sprayere0
- Outcome
- nymph densitiese0
- Direction
- reducee0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer was the only spray method to reduce significantly nymph densities when compared with the control in 1992”
e1“cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Egg, nymph and pupal-case counts varied by application method and rate in 1993.
- Taxon
- cauliflowerBrassica oleracea var. botrytise1
- Treatment
- application methods and rates of active ingrediente0
- Outcome
- numbers of eggs, nymphs, and eclosed pupal casese0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“differences in numbers of eggs, nymphs, and eclosed pupal cases varied among application methods and rates of active ingredient in 1993”
e1“cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvest-date comparisons showed no significantly better control from electrostatic spraying at similar rates.
- Taxon
- cauliflowerBrassica oleracea var. botrytise0
- Treatment
- air-assisted electrostatic sprayere0
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- did not provide significantly bettere0
- Comparator
- other application methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Comparisons of cauliflower harvest dates indicated that the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer did not provide significantly better control than the other application methods when used at similar rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Electrostatic spray deposition varied without a clear trend.
- Taxon
- cauliflowerBrassica oleracea var. botrytise1
- Treatment
- airassisted electrostatic application techniquee0
- Outcome
- Spray depositione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spray deposition with the airassisted electrostatic application technique was variable throughout these studies with no clear trends being observed”
e1“cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors suggest electrostatic spraying may control whiteflies with 50% less insecticide.
- Taxon
- cauliflowerBrassica oleracea var. botrytise1
- Interactor
- sweetpotato whitefly
Bemisia tabacie0pest - Outcome
- control sweetpotato whitefly with a 50% reduction in insecticide usagee0
- Value
- 50%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the air-assisted electrostatic sprayer may offer a means to control sweetpotato whitefly with a 50% reduction in insecticide usage”
e1“cauliflower, Brassica oleracea L.”
The same questions in other papers
application · control · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →application · pest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 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.