Paper · 1971 · Zeitschrift für Angewandte Entomologie

Chemical Control of the Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise in the Sudan (Halticidae, Coleoptera)

A. Badawi

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Four chemicals were tested against Podagrica puncticollis Weise, 3 of them as sprays: Sevin (W.P. 85%) 1¼ kg/feddan, DDT (D.P. 25%), 1½ l/feddan and Aldrin (E.C. 40%), ½ 1/feddan and one as dust: Aldrin, mixed with the soil at the base of plants of each hole. Chemicals were applied 3 times at about 15‐day intervals starting on 2nd of October. Samples of 400 leaves were taken from each treatment at 3 successive dates; 15 weeks after the 1st and 2nd applications and then one month after the last application. The best results were obtained with Sevin in which 7.5 % only of inspected leaves were damaged and a mean number of 11.2 holes per leaf was obtained. Both formulations of Aldrin gave approximately similar results: percentages of 10.7 and 12 for damaged leaves and means of 11.7 and 9.9 holes per damaged leaf were recorded for the dust and emulsifiable concentrate respectively. These effects were much lower than those obtained with DDT which gave an percentage of 24.8 for damaged leaves and a relatively higher mean number of 14.5 holes per damaged leaf. Percentage of 40.7 and a mean of 25.7 were recorded for the control. Zusammenfassung Zur chemischen Bekämpfung des Baumwoll‐Erdflohs Podagrica puncticollis Weise (Col., Haltic.);m Sudan Vier Insektizide wurden gegen P. puncticollis geprüft, 3 davon als Sprays: Sevin (85%), 1,25 kg/feddan,– DDT (25%), 1,5 l/feddan und Aldrin (40%), 0,5 1/feddan sowie in Staubform Aldrin, das im Pflanzloch mit Erde vermischt wurde. Die Mittel wurden dreimal hintereinander in 15tägigen Intervallen, beginnend am 2. Oktober, ausgebracht. Es wurden Proben von jeweils 400 Blättern zu 3 verschiedenen Zeiten entnommen: 15 Wochen nach der 1. und 2. Behandlung und 4 Wochen nach der letzten Behandlung. Das beste Ergebnis zeigte Sevin, bei welchem nur 7,5 % der Blätter beschädigt waren, mit einer mittleren Zahl von 11,2 Fraßlöchern/Blatt. Beide Formulierungen von Aldrin ergaben annähernd das gleiche Resultat: 10,7 und 12 % beschädigte Blätter mit 11,7 und 9,9 Löchern/Blatt. DDT fiel dagegen mit 24,8 % Schaden und 14,5 Löchern/Blatt erheblich ab. An unbehandelten Pflanzen wurden 40,7% Schaden und 25,7 Löcher/Blatt gezählt.

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sevin gave 7.5% damaged leaves.

Treatment
Sevine0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
inspected leaves were damagede0
Direction
beste0
Value
7.5 %e0

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

e0

“The best results were obtained with Sevin in which 7.5 % only of inspected leaves were damaged and a mean number of 11.2 holes per leaf was obtained.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–670 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sevin gave 11.2 holes per leaf.

Treatment
Sevine0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
holes per leafe0
Value
11.2 holes per leafe0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

e0

“The best results were obtained with Sevin in which 7.5 % only of inspected leaves were damaged and a mean number of 11.2 holes per leaf was obtained.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–670 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aldrin dust gave 10.7% damaged leaves.

Treatment
duste0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
damaged leavese0
Value
10.7e0
Comparator
emulsifiable concentratee0

Not reportedDirection

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

e0

“Both formulations of Aldrin gave approximately similar results: percentages of 10.7 and 12 for damaged leaves and means of 11.7 and 9.9 holes per damaged leaf were recorded for the dust and emulsifiable concentrate respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 671–899 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aldrin emulsion gave 12% damaged leaves.

Treatment
emulsifiable concentratee0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
damaged leavese0
Value
12e0
Comparator
duste0

Not reportedDirection

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

e0

“Both formulations of Aldrin gave approximately similar results: percentages of 10.7 and 12 for damaged leaves and means of 11.7 and 9.9 holes per damaged leaf were recorded for the dust and emulsifiable concentrate respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 671–899 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aldrin dust gave 11.7 holes per damaged leaf.

Treatment
duste0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
holes per damaged leafe0
Value
11.7e0
Comparator
emulsifiable concentratee0

Not reportedDirection

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

e0

“Both formulations of Aldrin gave approximately similar results: percentages of 10.7 and 12 for damaged leaves and means of 11.7 and 9.9 holes per damaged leaf were recorded for the dust and emulsifiable concentrate respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 671–899 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aldrin emulsion gave 9.9 holes per damaged leaf.

Treatment
emulsifiable concentratee0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
holes per damaged leafe0
Value
9.9e0
Comparator
duste0

Not reportedDirection

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

e0

“Both formulations of Aldrin gave approximately similar results: percentages of 10.7 and 12 for damaged leaves and means of 11.7 and 9.9 holes per damaged leaf were recorded for the dust and emulsifiable concentrate respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 671–899 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DDT gave 24.8% damaged leaves.

Treatment
DDTe0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
damaged leavese0
Direction
highere0
Value
24.8e0

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

e0

“These effects were much lower than those obtained with DDT which gave an percentage of 24.8 for damaged leaves and a relatively higher mean number of 14.5 holes per damaged leaf.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 900–1078 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

DDT gave 14.5 holes per damaged leaf.

Treatment
DDTe0
Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
holes per damaged leafe0
Direction
highere0
Value
14.5 holes per damaged leafe0

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

e0

“These effects were much lower than those obtained with DDT which gave an percentage of 24.8 for damaged leaves and a relatively higher mean number of 14.5 holes per damaged leaf.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 900–1078 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated controls had 40.7% damaged leaves.

Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
Percentagee0
Value
40.7e0
Qualifier
controle0

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

e0

“Percentage of 40.7 and a mean of 25.7 were recorded for the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1079–1147 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated controls averaged 25.7 holes per leaf.

Interactor
Podagrica puncticollis Weiset0pest
Outcome
meane0
Value
25.7e0
Qualifier
controle0

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

e0

“Percentage of 40.7 and a mean of 25.7 were recorded for the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1079–1147 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Flea Beetle Podagrica puncticollis Weise”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 24–71 · show in text ↑

carbaryl · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.