Abstract
The quantity and quality of fruit in 2 adjacent apple orchards in eastern West Virginia were compared between 1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications. Four species of plants [dill, Anethum graveolens L.; buckwheat, Fagopyrum esculentum Moench; dwarf sorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench; and rape, Brassica napus L.] were planted in alternating, single-species strips under the tree canopy, and only 1 broad-spectrum insecticide (phosmet) plus Bacillus thuringiensis was applied in the ground cover orchard over the 2-yr period (1995–1996) of the study. The conventional orchard received 5 applications of an organo-phosphate each year. Disease management was the same for both orchards. The ground cover orchard had significantly greater populations of spirea aphid (Aphis spiraecola Patch) and leafhoppers [Typhlocyba pomaria McAtee, Edwarsiana rosae (L.), and Emposaca fabae (Harris) ] than the conventional orchard. The conventional orchard had more damage from fire blight than the ground cover orchard. Total yield of apples from the ground cover orchard was significantly less than in the conventional orchard, probably because of competition by the ground cover plants for water and nutrients. Fruit quality was lower in the ground cover orchard in 1995 (76% undamaged fruit compared with 80% undamaged in the conventional orchard), but in 1996 there was no difference in fruit quality between orchards (75% undamaged fruit). Plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), damage was significantly different between orchards, but different orchards had greater damage in each year. In 1996, fruit in the conventional orchard had more apple scab, but in the ground cover orchard fruit had higher levels of summer rots and other diseases. In this study, ground covers and reduced insecticide use were not an acceptable alternative to conventional pest management because of reduced yield. However, with better management of ground cover plantings to avoid excessive competition with the apple trees, this strategy of pest management shows promise for reducing insecticide use in apple orchards.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
The ground cover orchard had significantly greater populations of spirea aphid than the conventional orchard.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticae1 - Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Interactor
- spirea aphide2pest
- Outcome
- populations of spirea aphide2
- Direction
- greatere2
- Comparator
- conventionally managed orcharde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“significantly greater populations of spirea aphid (Aphis spiraecola Patch)”
Claim · model-written summary
The ground cover orchard had significantly greater populations of leafhoppers than the conventional orchard.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Interactor
- leafhoppersCicadellidaee2pest
- Outcome
- leafhopperse2
- Direction
- greatere2
- Comparator
- conventionally managed orcharde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“significantly greater populations of spirea aphid (Aphis spiraecola Patch) and leafhoppers [Typhlocyba pomaria McAtee, Edwarsiana rosae (L.), and Emposaca fabae (Harris) ]”
Claim · model-written summary
The conventional orchard had more fire blight damage than the ground cover orchard.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Interactor
- fire blighte2pathogen
- Outcome
- damage from fire blighte2
- Direction
- lowerinferrede2
- Comparator
- conventional orcharde2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“The conventional orchard had more damage from fire blight than the ground cover orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
Total yield of apples from the ground cover orchard was significantly less than from the conventional orchard.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae2
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Outcome
- Total yield of applese2
- Direction
- lesse2
- Comparator
- conventional orcharde2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“Total yield of apples from the ground cover orchard was significantly less than in the conventional orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute the lower apple yield in the ground cover orchard probably to competition by the ground cover plants for water and nutrients.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae2
- Outcome
- Total yield of applese2
- Qualifier
- competition by the ground cover plants for water and nutrientse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Total yield of apples from the ground cover orchard was significantly less than in the conventional orchard, probably because of competition by the ground cover plants for water and nutrients”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1995 fruit quality was lower in the ground cover orchard (76% undamaged fruit) than in the conventional orchard (80% undamaged).
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Outcome
- Fruit qualitye2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- 76% undamaged fruite2
- Qualifier
- 1995e2
- Comparator
- conventional orcharde2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“Fruit quality was lower in the ground cover orchard in 1995 (76% undamaged fruit compared with 80% undamaged in the conventional orchard)”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996 there was no difference in fruit quality between the orchards (75% undamaged fruit).
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye2
- Direction
- no differencee2
- Value
- 75% undamaged fruite2
- Qualifier
- 1996e2
- Comparator
- conventionally managed orcharde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“in 1996 there was no difference in fruit quality between orchards (75% undamaged fruit)”
Claim · model-written summary
Plum curculio damage differed significantly between orchards, with different orchards having greater damage in each year.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Interactor
- Plum curculio
Conotrachelus nenuphare2pest - Outcome
- Plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), damagee2
- Comparator
- conventionally managed orcharde1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“Plum curculio, Conotrachelus nenuphar (Herbst), damage was significantly different between orchards, but different orchards had greater damage in each year”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996 apple scab was higher on fruit in the conventional orchard than in the ground cover orchard.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Interactor
- apple scabe2pathogen
- Outcome
- apple scabe2
- Direction
- lowerinferrede2
- Qualifier
- 1996e2
- Comparator
- conventional orcharde2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“In 1996, fruit in the conventional orchard had more apple scab”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996 fruit in the ground cover orchard had higher levels of summer rots and other diseases.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Treatment
- ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applicationse1
- Interactor
- summer rotse2pathogen
- Outcome
- summer rots and other diseasese2
- Direction
- higher levelse2
- Comparator
- conventionally managed orcharde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“but in the ground cover orchard fruit had higher levels of summer rots and other diseases”
Claim · model-written summary
Ground covers and reduced insecticide use were not an acceptable alternative to conventional pest management in this study because of reduced yield.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae1
- Outcome
- not an acceptable alternative to conventional pest managemente2
- Qualifier
- because of reduced yielde2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“1 conventionally managed orchard and 1 with ground cover plantings underneath apple trees and reduced insecticide applications”
e2“ground covers and reduced insecticide use were not an acceptable alternative to conventional pest management because of reduced yield”
Claim · model-written summary
With better management of ground cover plantings to avoid excessive competition with apple trees, this pest management strategy shows promise for reducing insecticide use in apple orchards.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticae2
- Outcome
- shows promise for reducing insecticide usee2
- Qualifier
- better management of ground cover plantings to avoid excessive competitione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“with better management of ground cover plantings to avoid excessive competition with the apple trees, this strategy of pest management shows promise for reducing insecticide use in apple orchards”
The same questions in other papers
insecticide · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →insecticide · pest · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →insecticide · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.