Paper · 2010 · Planta Daninha

Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls

M.S. Lima; P.S.L. Silva; O.F. Oliveira; et al.

11
claims
25
verbatim quotes
83
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

The interference imposed the by weeds on corn decreases practically all vegetative characteristics. As consequence, the green ear and grain yield are also reduced. Losses due to the fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) attack can reduce corn grain yield up to 34%. In general, weed and insect control issues are addressed separately in research papers. Nevertheless, interaction between weeds and insects may exist. This study aimed to evaluate green ear and corn grain yield response to weed and fall armyworm control. A completely randomized block design with split-plots and five replicates was adopted. Corn cultivar AG 1051 was grown under weedy conditions or with control by hand hoeings performed at 20 and 40 days after planting. Fall armyworm control (applied to subplots) was performed with sprays of water (control), deltamethrin (5g active ingredient ha-1); neem oil, at 0.5% (diluted in water), and neem leaf extract at 5%. Each product was sprayed three times, at seven-day intervals, starting at the 7th day after planting, using 150 L ha-1 of the tank solution. Dry mass of the above-ground part, internode diameter, leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, green ear yield and grain yield of corn were reduced due to the lack of weed control. Fall armyworm control in the weeded plots did not influence green ear yield and grain yield, except green mass of marketable, husked ears, which was reduced when the caterpillar was not controlled. Without weed control, neem extracts and deltamethrin sprays provided highest yields of number and total weight of green ears with husks, number and weight of marketable ears with husks and number of marketable ears without husks. The best results for husked ear mass and for grain yield were obtained with neem extract and deltamethrin, respectively.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lack of weed control reduced dry mass of the above-ground part, internode diameter and leaf length of corn.

Material
AG 1051e1
Treatment
lack of weed controle2
Outcome
Dry mass of the above-ground part, internode diameter, leaf lengthe2
Direction
reducede2
Comparator
weed controle2

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e1

“Corn cultivar AG 1051 was grown under weedy conditions or with control by hand hoeings performed at 20 and 40 days after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 608–737 · show in text ↑
e2

“Dry mass of the above-ground part, internode diameter, leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, green ear yield and grain yield of corn were reduced due to the lack of weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1079–1254 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lack of weed control reduced leaf width and leaf area of corn.

Material
AG 1051e1
Treatment
lack of weed controle2
Outcome
leaf width, leaf areae2
Direction
reducede2
Comparator
weed controle2

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e1

“Corn cultivar AG 1051 was grown under weedy conditions or with control by hand hoeings performed at 20 and 40 days after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 608–737 · show in text ↑
e2

“Dry mass of the above-ground part, internode diameter, leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, green ear yield and grain yield of corn were reduced due to the lack of weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1079–1254 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lack of weed control reduced green ear yield and grain yield of corn.

Material
AG 1051e1
Treatment
lack of weed controle2
Outcome
green ear yield and grain yielde2
Direction
reducede2
Comparator
weed controle2

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e1

“Corn cultivar AG 1051 was grown under weedy conditions or with control by hand hoeings performed at 20 and 40 days after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 608–737 · show in text ↑
e2

“Dry mass of the above-ground part, internode diameter, leaf length, leaf width, leaf area, green ear yield and grain yield of corn were reduced due to the lack of weed control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1079–1254 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fall armyworm control in weeded plots did not influence green ear yield or grain yield of corn.

Treatment
Fall armyworm controle3
Interactor
fall armywormSpodoptera frugiperdae3pest
Outcome
green ear yield and grain yielde3
Direction
did not influencee3

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e3

“Fall armyworm control in the weeded plots did not influence green ear yield and grain yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1256–1347 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green mass of marketable husked ears of corn was reduced when the caterpillar was not controlled.

Treatment
the caterpillar was not controllede4
Interactor
caterpillare4pest
Outcome
green mass of marketable, husked earse4
Direction
reducede4

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e4

“except green mass of marketable, husked ears, which was reduced when the caterpillar was not controlled”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1349–1452 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without weed control, neem extract provided the highest yields of number and total weight of green ears with husks.

Treatment
neem extractse5
Outcome
number and total weight of green ears with huskse5
Direction
highest yieldse5
Qualifier
Without weed controle5

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e5

“Without weed control, neem extracts and deltamethrin sprays provided highest yields of number and total weight of green ears with husks, number and weight of marketable ears with husks and number of marketable ears without husks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1682 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without weed control, deltamethrin sprays provided the highest yields of number and total weight of green ears with husks.

Treatment
deltamethrin sprayse5
Outcome
number and total weight of green ears with huskse5
Direction
highest yieldse5
Qualifier
Without weed controle5

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e5

“Without weed control, neem extracts and deltamethrin sprays provided highest yields of number and total weight of green ears with husks, number and weight of marketable ears with husks and number of marketable ears without husks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1682 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without weed control, neem extract provided the highest yields of marketable ears with husks and of marketable ears without husks.

Treatment
neem extractse5
Outcome
number and weight of marketable ears with husks and number of marketable ears without huskse5
Direction
highest yieldse5
Qualifier
Without weed controle5

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e5

“Without weed control, neem extracts and deltamethrin sprays provided highest yields of number and total weight of green ears with husks, number and weight of marketable ears with husks and number of marketable ears without husks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1682 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Without weed control, deltamethrin sprays provided the highest yields of marketable ears with husks and of marketable ears without husks.

Treatment
deltamethrin sprayse5
Outcome
number and weight of marketable ears with husks and number of marketable ears without huskse5
Direction
highest yieldse5
Qualifier
Without weed controle5

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e5

“Without weed control, neem extracts and deltamethrin sprays provided highest yields of number and total weight of green ears with husks, number and weight of marketable ears with husks and number of marketable ears without husks”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1682 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem extract gave the best results for husked ear mass of corn.

Treatment
neem extracte6
Outcome
husked ear masse6
Direction
best resultse6

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e6

“The best results for husked ear mass and for grain yield were obtained with neem extract and deltamethrin, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1684–1803 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Deltamethrin gave the best results for grain yield of corn.

Treatment
deltamethrine6
Outcome
grain yielde6
Direction
best resultse6

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–54 · show in text ↑
e6

“The best results for husked ear mass and for grain yield were obtained with neem extract and deltamethrin, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1684–1803 · show in text ↑

Spodoptera frugiperda · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

Azadirachta indica · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 13 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

application · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 6 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

botanical · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 15 positive, 5 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 papers →

herbicide · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

143 papers: 86 positive, 57 negative or no effect

56 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

139 papers more in this group

See all 143 papers →

application · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

337 papers: 310 positive, 27 negative or no effect

309 papers in the same direction as this paper · 25 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

333 papers more in this group

See all 337 papers →

botanical · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

340 papers: 198 positive, 142 negative or no effect

197 papers in the same direction as this paper · 140 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

336 papers more in this group

See all 340 papers →

herbicide · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

651 papers: 500 positive, 151 negative or no effect

150 papers in the same direction as this paper · 500 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

647 papers more in this group

See all 651 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.