Paper · 2003 · He'nan nongye daxue xuebao

Study on effect of different pesticide-using methods on the control of tomato Trialeurodes vaporiorum Westwood

Dong Liu

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Three pesticideusing methods--Foliar spray, putting mixture of pesticide and sand in transplanting hole before transplantation and irrigating root range with pesticide solution after transplantation were used to study their control effect on the tomato Trialearodes vaporiorum Westwood.The results showed that foliar spray showed fast and high control efficacy (91.58%~96.06%) 3 days after treatment.Posttransplanting irrigation had long (over 21 days) and higher control efficacy (90.51%~96.72%) 14 days after treatment. Pretransplanting using of mixture of pesticide and sand performed lower control efficacy. But all the three using methods had no negative influence on the tomato growth.

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 resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar spray had rapid, high control efficacy 3 days after treatment.

Treatment
foliar spraye0
Outcome
control efficacye0
Direction
highe0
Value
91.58%~96.06%e0

Not reportedInteractorComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“foliar spray showed fast and high control efficacy (91.58%~96.06%) 3 days after treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 313–402 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Post-transplanting irrigation maintained high control efficacy for over 21 days.

Treatment
Posttransplanting irrigatione0
Outcome
control efficacye0
Direction
highere0
Value
90.51%~96.72%e0
Qualifier
over 21 dayse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Posttransplanting irrigation had long (over 21 days) and higher control efficacy (90.51%~96.72%) 14 days after treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 403–524 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre-transplanting pesticide and sand had lower control efficacy.

Treatment
Pretransplanting using of mixture of pesticide and sande0
Outcome
control efficacye0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Pretransplanting using of mixture of pesticide and sand performed lower control efficacy”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 526–615 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All three pesticide methods had no negative influence on tomato growth.

Treatment
all the three using methodse0
Outcome
tomato growthe0
Direction
no negative influencee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“all the three using methods had no negative influence on the tomato growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 621–695 · show in text ↑
t0

“tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–77 · show in text ↑

growing medium · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

irrigation · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)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 →

insecticide · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 8 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

application · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results

36 papers: 34 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

32 papers more in this group

See all 36 papers →

transplanting · control · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

10 papers: 10 positive, 0 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 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.