Paper · 2015 · Acta Horticulturae

THRESHOLDS FOR VECTOR CONTROL AND COMPATIBILITY WITH BENEFICIAL FAUNA IN CITRUS WITH HIGH INCIDENCE OF HUANGLONGBING

Cesar Monzó; Philip A. Stansly

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
13
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Huanglongbing (HLB) or citrus greening disease is vectored by the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), Diaphorina citri Kuwayama. Vector control is considered a basic component of HLB management even in a high disease incidence scenario. Such control is mostly chemically oriented. However, overuse of insecticides would increase costs and be incompatible with biological control. Establishment of economic thresholds for psyllid control under different price scenarios would optimize returns on investment. A 3-year experiment is being conducted in a commercial orange block with high HLB incidence. Experimental design is RCB with 4 treatments and 4 replicates: (1) calendar applications, (2) insecticide applications according to a threshold of 0.2 psyllids/stem tap sample, (3) applications according to a 0.7 threshold and (4) no insecticide. Vector populations are monitored biweekly by tap sampling. Differences in vector abundance among treatments are being correlated to fruit yields. Consequences of each vector control strategy on beneficial arthropod fauna are also being evaluated, as well as potential negative impacts on biological control. After two years, a significant yield increase was observed with the calendar treatment, but so far, justification for the additional costs would require higher than actual juice prices scenarios. ACP management strategies based on nominal thresholds are so far more profitable. Negative impacts of calendar sprays on biological control of mites and leafminers have been observed.

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 resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Calendar insecticide applications significantly increased orange yield after two years.

Taxon
orangee1
Treatment
calendar treatmente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“After two years, a significant yield increase was observed with the calendar treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1147–1233 · show in text ↑
e1

“commercial orange block with high HLB incidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 543–590 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nominal psyllid thresholds were more profitable than calendar applications.

Taxon
orangee1
Outcome
more profitablee0
Direction
more profitablee0

Verbatim

e0

“ACP management strategies based on nominal thresholds are so far more profitable”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1343–1423 · show in text ↑
e1

“commercial orange block with high HLB incidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 543–590 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Calendar sprays negatively affected biological control of mites and leafminers.

Taxon
orangee1
Treatment
calendar sprayse0
Interactor
mitese0pest
Second interactor
leafminersAgromyzidaee0pest
Outcome
biological control of mites and leafminerse0
Direction
Negative impactse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Negative impacts of calendar sprays on biological control of mites and leafminers have been observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1425–1525 · show in text ↑
e1

“commercial orange block with high HLB incidence”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 543–590 · show in text ↑

application · pest · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 3 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.