Paper · 1998 · Journal of Economic Entomology

Association Between Sugarbeet Root Yield and Sugarbeet Root Maggot (Diptera: Otitidae) Damage

L. G. Campbell; A. W. Anderson; Robert Dregseth; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
33
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis von RÖder, is a major insect pest of sugarbeet throughout much of North America. Root maggot damage is routinely rated on a 0 (no damage) to 5 (severe damage) scale. In 42 trials, the relationship between visual damage and root yield was examined. The mean damage rating in the absence of insecticides was 3.3 ± 0.4, compared with 1.7 ± 0.7 for the highest yielding treatment in each trial. Mean root yield of the highest yielding treatment in each trial was 48.8 8.9 Mg ha-1, compared with a mean of 29.0 ± 12.5Mg ha-1 when no insecticides were applied. Regression analyses within individual trials indicated that the yield loss associated with each increment of the damage rating scale fluctuated widely, ranging from near 0 to 15.7 ± 2.42 Mg ha-1 The percent yield reduction in the absence of insecticides ranged from 9.8 to 83.6% when compared with the treatment providing the most effective control in each test. These results are useful in estimating losses, developing recommendations, and providing a standard of comparison for alternative control strategies.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Damage ratings without insecticides averaged 3.3 compared with 1.7 for the highest yielding treatment.

Treatment
absence of insecticidese1
Interactor
Tetanops myopaeformisTetanops myopaeformise0pest
Outcome
mean damage ratinge1
Direction
higherinferrede1
Value
3.3 ± 0.4e1
Comparator
highest yielding treatmente1

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis von RÖder, is a major insect pest of sugarbeet throughout much of North America”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–124 · show in text ↑
e1

“The mean damage rating in the absence of insecticides was 3.3 ± 0.4, compared with 1.7 ± 0.7 for the highest yielding treatment in each trial”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 293–434 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mean root yield was higher with insecticides than without them.

Treatment
insecticidese2
Outcome
Mean root yielde2
Direction
higherinferrede2
Value
48.8 8.9 Mg ha-1e2
Qualifier
29.0 ± 12.5Mg ha-1e2
Comparator
no insecticides were appliede2

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis von RÖder, is a major insect pest of sugarbeet throughout much of North America”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–124 · show in text ↑
e2

“Mean root yield of the highest yielding treatment in each trial was 48.8 8.9 Mg ha-1, compared with a mean of 29.0 ± 12.5Mg ha-1 when no insecticides were applied”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 436–598 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The yield loss per increment of the damage rating scale fluctuated widely, from near 0 to 15.7 ± 2.42 Mg ha-1.

Treatment
each increment of the damage rating scalee3
Outcome
yield loss associated with each increment of the damage rating scalee3
Value
15.7 ± 2.42 Mg ha-1e3
Qualifier
fluctuated widelye3

Not reportedDirection

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis von RÖder, is a major insect pest of sugarbeet throughout much of North America”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–124 · show in text ↑
e3

“the yield loss associated with each increment of the damage rating scale fluctuated widely, ranging from near 0 to 15.7 ± 2.42 Mg ha-1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 660–794 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The percent yield reduction without insecticides ranged from 9.8 to 83.6%.

Treatment
absence of insecticidese4
Outcome
percent yield reductione4
Direction
reductione4
Value
9.8 to 83.6%e4
Comparator
the treatment providing the most effective controle4

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

Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris · TaxonQuadell · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sugarbeet root maggot, Tetanops myopaeformis von RÖder, is a major insect pest of sugarbeet throughout much of North America”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–124 · show in text ↑
e4

“The percent yield reduction in the absence of insecticides ranged from 9.8 to 83.6% when compared with the treatment providing the most effective control in each test”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 795–961 · show in text ↑

insecticide · Tetanops myopaeformis · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

insecticide · yield · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 8 positive, 5 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.