Paper · 2000 · HortTechnology

A Two-component Quarantine Treatment for Postharvest Control of Codling Moth on Apple Cultivars Intended for Export to Japan and Korea

James D. Hansen; Harold R. Moffitt; Dennis J. Albano; et al.

3
claims
10
verbatim quotes
21
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Confirmatory tests were performed on a two-component quarantine treatment against the codling moth ( Cydia pomonella L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for seven apple [ Malus sylvestris (L.) var. domestica (Borkh.) Mansf.] cultivars ('Delicious,' `Golden Delicious,' `Braeburn,' `Fuji,' `Gala,' `Jonagold,' and `Granny Smith') intended for export to Japan and Korea. Treatment consists of a 55-day cold storage at 40 °F (2.2 °C) or below, followed by a 2-hour methyl bromide fumigation (0.056 oz/ft 3 or 56 g·m -3 ) at 50 °F (10 °C). No eggs or larvae survived this treatment. Comparison tests were conducted on all cultivars to demonstrate no difference in insect responses between a previously accepted cultivar and proposed cultivars. Concentration-mortality responses were determined for each of the components and no statistical differences were found in the regression slopes of pest mortality with controlling variable (either cold exposure or fumigation) among all cultivars. Descriptive mathematical models, developed for the effects of cold storage on egg mortality and for methyl bromide fumigation on larvae mortality, were sigmoid curve equations.

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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two-component quarantine treatment of cold storage and methyl bromide fumigation killed all codling moth eggs and larvae on apples.

Treatment
55-day cold storage at 40 °F (2.2 °C) or below, followed by a 2-hour methyl bromide fumigatione1
Interactor
codling mothCydia pomonellae0pest
Outcome
eggs or larvae survivede2

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cydia pomonella
Cydia pomonella · InteractorSimon Winkley & Ken Walker, Museum Victoria · CC BY 3.0 au · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Codling Moth on Apple Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 64–95 · show in text ↑
e0

“Confirmatory tests were performed on a two-component quarantine treatment against the codling moth ( Cydia pomonella L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for seven apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–163 · show in text ↑
e1

“Treatment consists of a 55-day cold storage at 40 °F (2.2 °C) or below, followed by a 2-hour methyl bromide fumigation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 364–482 · show in text ↑
e2

“No eggs or larvae survived this treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 531–572 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Codling moth insect responses showed no difference between the previously accepted cultivar and the proposed apple cultivars.

Outcome
insect responsese3
Direction
no differencee3
Comparator
a previously accepted cultivare3

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Codling Moth on Apple Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 64–95 · show in text ↑
e0

“Confirmatory tests were performed on a two-component quarantine treatment against the codling moth ( Cydia pomonella L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for seven apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–163 · show in text ↑
e3

“Comparison tests were conducted on all cultivars to demonstrate no difference in insect responses between a previously accepted cultivar and proposed cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 574–733 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No statistically significant differences in regression slopes of pest mortality were found among apple cultivars.

Outcome
regression slopes of pest mortalitye4
Direction
no statistical differencese4
Qualifier
with controlling variablee4

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Codling Moth on Apple Cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 64–95 · show in text ↑
e0

“Confirmatory tests were performed on a two-component quarantine treatment against the codling moth ( Cydia pomonella L.) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for seven apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–163 · show in text ↑
e4

“no statistical differences were found in the regression slopes of pest mortality with controlling variable (either cold exposure or fumigation) among all cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 816–979 · show in text ↑

bromomethane · Cydia pomonella · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

solarization · Cydia pomonella · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. no effect

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

cold · Cydia pomonella · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.