Paper · 1992 · Journal of Economic Entomology

Effect of Three Adjuvants on Coverage, Persistence, and Efficacy of Ground-Applied Chlorpyrifos for Suppression of Cotton Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae)

N. M. French; S. B. Ramaswamy; D. B. Smith; et al.

12
claims
23
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Effects of adjuvants on chlorpyrifos for suppression of cotton aphid, Aphis Gossypii (Glover), in cotton, Gossypium hirsutum (L.), were evaluated using four parameters: percentage cotton aphid mortality, spray droplet coverage (percentage area covered) on water-sensitive cards, spray droplet penetration (average spot diameter frequency distributions) into the cotton canopy, and the rate of disappearance (decay) of chlorpyrifos residues from cotton leaf surfaces. All factors were measured on cotton averaging 171.4 cm in height at three canopy levels (from terminal): upper, 0 cm; middle, 45.7 cm; lower, 76.2 cm. Mortality of aphids in the upper canopy level (89%) was higher than middle (66%) and lower (57%) levels. Spray coverage, measured as mean percentage area of water-sensitive cards covered by spots, decreased at each lower canopy level as did mean total number of spots per square centimeter. Chlorpyrifos alone generally had a higher proportion of spots per square centimeter in the middle and lower canopy levels relative to the upper level, compared with the adjuvant combinations. No differences in spot diameter frequency distributions were detected among treatments within a canopy level or within a treatment among canopy levels. Initial mean chlorpyrifos deposits on cotton leaf surfaces were highest at the upper canopy level (678 ng/cm2) and decreased by approximately 50% at each descending canopy level. Rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifos from cotton leaf surfaces was significantly reduced at the middle and lower canopy levels compared with the upper level. Adjuvants did not significantly affect chlorpyrifos efficacy, deposition characteristics, or rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifos. Canopy level was important for all three measured criteria.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton aphid mortality was greatest in the upper canopy, then middle and lower levels.

Organ / stage
upper canopy levele0
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae0pest
Outcome
Mortality of aphidse0
Direction
highere0
Value
89%e0
Qualifier
middle (66%) and lower (57%) levelse0

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

“Mortality of aphids in the upper canopy level (89%) was higher than middle (66%) and lower (57%) levels.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 618–722 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spray coverage decreased at each lower canopy level.

Organ / stage
lower canopy levele0
Outcome
Spray coveragee0
Direction
decreasede0

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

“Spray coverage, measured as mean percentage area of water-sensitive cards covered by spots, decreased at each lower canopy level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 723–851 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total spray spots per square centimeter decreased at lower canopy levels.

Organ / stage
lower canopy levele0
Outcome
mean total number of spots per square centimetere0
Direction
decreasede0

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

“decreased at each lower canopy level as did mean total number of spots per square centimeter”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 815–907 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlorpyrifos alone had a higher middle and lower canopy spot proportion than adjuvant combinations.

Organ / stage
middle and lower canopy levelse0
Treatment
Chlorpyrifos alonee0
Outcome
proportion of spots per square centimetere0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
adjuvant combinationse0

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

“Chlorpyrifos alone generally had a higher proportion of spots per square centimeter in the middle and lower canopy levels relative to the upper level, compared with the adjuvant combinations.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 909–1100 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Spot diameter distributions did not differ among treatments or canopy levels.

Outcome
spot diameter frequency distributionse0
Direction
No differencese0

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

“No differences in spot diameter frequency distributions were detected among treatments within a canopy level or within a treatment among canopy levels.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1101–1252 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Initial chlorpyrifos deposits were highest in the upper canopy.

Organ / stage
leaf surfacese0
Outcome
Initial mean chlorpyrifos depositse0
Direction
higheste0
Value
678 ng/cm2e0

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

“Initial mean chlorpyrifos deposits on cotton leaf surfaces were highest at the upper canopy level (678 ng/cm2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1253–1363 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlorpyrifos deposits decreased about 50% at each descending canopy level.

Organ / stage
descending canopy levele0
Outcome
chlorpyrifos depositse1
Direction
decreasede0
Value
approximately 50%e0

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

“decreased by approximately 50% at each descending canopy level”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1368–1430 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
e1

“Initial mean chlorpyrifos deposits on cotton leaf surfaces were highest at the upper canopy level (678 ng/cm2)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1253–1363 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlorpyrifos disappeared more slowly at middle and lower canopy levels than upper.

Organ / stage
cotton leaf surfacese0
Outcome
Rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifose0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
upper levele0

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

“Rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifos from cotton leaf surfaces was significantly reduced at the middle and lower canopy levels compared with the upper level.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1432–1590 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Adjuvants did not significantly affect chlorpyrifos efficacy.

Treatment
Adjuvantse0
Interactor
Cotton AphidAphis gossypiit0pest
Outcome
chlorpyrifos efficacye0
Direction
did not significantly affecte0

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 ↗
Aphis gossypii
Aphis gossypii · InteractorDr Lewis Wilson, CSIRO · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Adjuvants did not significantly affect chlorpyrifos efficacy, deposition characteristics, or rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifos.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1591–1722 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Aphid”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–127 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Adjuvants did not significantly affect chlorpyrifos deposition.

Treatment
Adjuvantse0
Outcome
deposition characteristicse0
Direction
did not significantly affecte0

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

“Adjuvants did not significantly affect chlorpyrifos efficacy, deposition characteristics, or rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifos.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1591–1722 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Adjuvants did not significantly affect chlorpyrifos disappearance rate.

Treatment
Adjuvantse0
Outcome
rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifose0
Direction
did not significantly affecte0

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

“Adjuvants did not significantly affect chlorpyrifos efficacy, deposition characteristics, or rate of disappearance of chlorpyrifos.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1591–1722 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canopy level was important for all three measured criteria.

Organ / stage
Canopy levele0
Outcome
all three measured criteriae0

Not reportedDirection

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

“Canopy level was important for all three measured criteria.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1723–1782 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 115–121 · show in text ↑

adjuvant · Aphis gossypii · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

2 papers: 1 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

adjuvant · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 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.