Paper · 1985 · Journal of Economic Entomology

Response of Cotton Arthropod Populations in Cotton to Various Dosages of Aldicarb Applied in the Furrow at Planting Time

W. P. Scott; J. W. Smith; G. L. Snodgrass

8
claims
14
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Arthropod populations found in cotton treated with aldicarb were compared to those found in cotton treated with dimethoate and an untreated check from 1981 through 1983. Populations of the bollworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie), and tobacco budworm, H. virescens (F.), were low during all 3 years of the test, and the use of aldicarb did not result in increased damage. The tarnished plant bug, Lygus lineolaris (Palisot de Beauvois), was the main cotton pest found during all 3 years of the test. All aldicarb treatments suppressed tarnished plant bug populations, although the high dose (1.13 kg [AI]/ha) gave the most consistent control for a 7- or 8-week period after planting. Control, mainly of the tarnished plant bug, resulted in a higher squaring rate and an increase in numbers of bolls in the insecticide treatments. Yield of seed cotton was significantly higher in the plots receiving the dimethoate and high and medium (0.56 kg [AI]/ha) dosages of aldicarb, compared to the untreated check in 2 years of the study. Some suppression of big-eyed bugs, Geocoris spp., populations occurred in 2 years of the test. However, populations of several other beneficial arthropods were not affected.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aldicarb did not increase bollworm or budworm damage.

Treatment
aldicarbe0
Outcome
damagee0
Direction
did not result in increasede0

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

“Populations of the bollworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie), and tobacco budworm, H. virescens (F.), were low during all 3 years of the test, and the use of aldicarb did not result in increased damage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 170–362 · show in text ↑
t0

“Response of Cotton Arthropod Populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aldicarb suppressed tarnished plant bug populations.

Treatment
aldicarb treatmentse0
Interactor
tarnished plant bugLygus lineolarise0pest
Outcome
tarnished plant bug populationse0
Direction
suppressede0

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 ↗
Lygus lineolaris
Lygus lineolaris · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All aldicarb treatments suppressed tarnished plant bug populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 492–558 · show in text ↑
t0

“Response of Cotton Arthropod Populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The high aldicarb dose gave the most consistent control for seven or eight weeks.

Treatment
high dose (1.13 kg [AI]/ha)e0
Outcome
controle0
Direction
most consistente0
Qualifier
7- or 8-week period after plantinge0

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 high dose (1.13 kg [AI]/ha) gave the most consistent control for a 7- or 8-week period after planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 569–674 · show in text ↑
t0

“Response of Cotton Arthropod Populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pest control raised cotton squaring rate and boll number.

Treatment
insecticide treatmentse0
Outcome
squaring rate and an increase in numbers of bollse0
Direction
highere0

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

“Control, mainly of the tarnished plant bug, resulted in a higher squaring rate and an increase in numbers of bolls in the insecticide treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 676–820 · show in text ↑
t0

“Response of Cotton Arthropod Populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Dimethoate significantly increased seed cotton yield versus untreated plots in two years.

Treatment
dimethoatee0
Outcome
Yield of seed cottone0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
untreated checke0

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

“Yield of seed cotton was significantly higher in the plots receiving the dimethoate and high and medium (0.56 kg [AI]/ha) dosages of aldicarb, compared to the untreated check in 2 years of the study”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 822–1020 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

High and medium aldicarb doses significantly increased seed cotton yield versus untreated plots in two years.

Treatment
high and medium (0.56 kg [AI]/ha) dosages of aldicarbe0
Outcome
Yield of seed cottone0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
untreated checke0

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

“Yield of seed cotton was significantly higher in the plots receiving the dimethoate and high and medium (0.56 kg [AI]/ha) dosages of aldicarb, compared to the untreated check in 2 years of the study”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 822–1020 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Insecticide treatment suppressed big-eyed bug populations in two years.

Interactor
Geocoris spp.Geocorise0other
Outcome
big-eyed bugs, Geocoris spp., populationse0
Direction
suppressione0

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 ↗
Geocoris
Geocoris · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Some suppression of big-eyed bugs, Geocoris spp., populations occurred in 2 years of the test”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1115 · show in text ↑
t0

“Response of Cotton Arthropod Populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Several other beneficial arthropod populations were unaffected.

Outcome
populations of several other beneficial arthropodse0
Direction
not affectede0

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

“populations of several other beneficial arthropods were not affected”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1194 · show in text ↑
t0

“Response of Cotton Arthropod Populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–40 · show in text ↑

aldicarb · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

24 papers: 20 positive, 4 negative or no effect

19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 papers →

dimethoate · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

aldicarb · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

aldicarb · Lygus lineolaris · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

insecticide · physiology: photosynthesis · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
See all 3 papers →

in vitro · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

15 papers: 15 positive, 0 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 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.