Paper · 1969 · Journal of Economic Entomology

Field Evaluations of Soil and Foliar Insecticides for Control of the Sugarbeet Root Maggot12

Walter E. Peay; George W. Bearos; Arthur A. Swenson

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Good control of Tetanops myopaeformis(RÖder) was obtained when granular insecticides were applied to the at planting time or when foliar sprays were directed at the adult flies when they emerged. In 1966, a relatively dry, warm year, the best materials gave 84% control of the maggot and increased yields up to 39%. Better control of the maggots was obtained in 1967, but yields were not increased. Stormy, cool weather was favorable for beet growth and unfavorable for fly activity during emergence. Consequently, the maggot populations were large enough to reduce yields. Granular formulations of Bay 37289 (O-ethyl 0-2,4,5-trichlorophenyl ethylphos-phonothioate), Stauffer N-2790 (O-ethyl S-phenyl ethylphos-phonodithioate), Bay 25141 (O, O-diethyl O-[p-(methylsulfinyl)phenyl] phosphorothioate), diazinon, phorate, UC-21149 (2-methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O-(methy]-carbamoyl)oxime), and carbofuran were the most promising in 1966 gave yield increases of 4 tons per Foliar sprays directed at the adult flies at the peak of acre. However, the plots were too small to show any differences between individual materials. In 1967 on acre-sized sized or larger plots, malathion emulsion gave the best control. On a 584-acre experiment, ultra-low-volume technical malathion gave 97% reduction in fly populations and yield increases of 3–4 tons.

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At planting granular insecticides and adult fly foliar sprays provided good root maggot control.

Treatment
granular insecticidese1
Interactor
Tetanops myopaeformis(RÖder)Tetanops myopaeformise1pest
Outcome
control of Tetanops myopaeformis(RÖder)e1
Direction
Good controle1

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“Good control of Tetanops myopaeformis(RÖder) was obtained when granular insecticides were applied to the at planting time or when foliar sprays were directed at the adult flies when they emerged”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–194 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Best materials achieved 84% root maggot control in 1966.

Treatment
best materialse1
Interactor
maggote1pest
Outcome
control of the maggote1
Direction
controle1
Value
84%e1

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“In 1966, a relatively dry, warm year, the best materials gave 84% control of the maggot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 196–283 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The best materials increased yields by up to 39% in 1966.

Treatment
best materialse1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
increasede1
Value
39%e1

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“the best materials gave 84% control of the maggot and increased yields up to 39%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–314 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maggot control was better in 1967.

Interactor
maggotse1pest
Outcome
control of the maggotse1
Direction
Bettere1

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“Better control of the maggots was obtained in 1967”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 316–366 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Despite improved control in 1967, yields did not increase.

Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
not increasede1

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“Better control of the maggots was obtained in 1967, but yields were not increased”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 316–397 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Individual insecticide materials could not be distinguished on small plots.

Outcome
differences between individual materialse1
Direction
too small to show any differencese1

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“the plots were too small to show any differences between individual materials”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1050–1127 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Malathion emulsion gave the best control on acre-sized plots in 1967.

Treatment
malathion emulsione1
Outcome
controle1
Direction
beste1

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“In 1967 on acre-sized sized or larger plots, malathion emulsion gave the best control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1129–1214 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ultra-low-volume technical malathion reduced fly populations 97% in a 584-acre experiment.

Treatment
ultra-low-volume technical malathione1
Interactor
flye1pest
Outcome
fly populationse1
Direction
reductione1
Value
97%e1

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“On a 584-acre experiment, ultra-low-volume technical malathion gave 97% reduction in fly populations”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1216–1316 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ultra-low-volume technical malathion raised yield by 3–4 tons.

Treatment
ultra-low-volume technical malathione1
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
increasese1
Value
3–4 tonse1

Not reportedComparator

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

t0

“Sugarbeet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–78 · show in text ↑
e1

“ultra-low-volume technical malathion gave 97% reduction in fly populations and yield increases of 3–4 tons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1242–1348 · show in text ↑

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

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 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.