Abstract
In the northeastern United States, control of Lepidopteran pests of sweet corn, particularly corn earworm [Helicoverpa zea (Boddie)], is difficult using organic methods. The direct application of corn oil and Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to corn silk has been shown to reduce ear damage from corn earworm in past studies; these studies sought to optimize this method by evaluating additional carrier and biopesticide mixtures that comply with the United States Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and National Organic Standards. Carriers, which are liquids used to dissolve the biopesticide and deliver it into the tip of the ear, may have phytotoxic or insecticidal properties. Experiments conducted from 2001 to 2005 evaluated caterpillar damage and ear development effects from carriers (vegetable and paraffinic oils and carrageenan), biopesticides (Bt, spinsosad, and neem), and three emulsifiers in various combinations when applied directly to the tips of the ears 5-7 d after silk initiation. There were no effects of emulsifiers on ear quality, except for slight reduction in caterpillar damage in one of the two years. There were no differences among corn, soy, canola, and safflower oils in corn earworm control or tip development. The carrageenan carrier had the least effect upon ear development as measured by the length of nonpollinated kernels at the tip, compared to corn oil or paraffinic oil (JMS Stylet Oil), which caused the greatest tip damage as well as an oily discoloration. The carrier-pesticide combinations with the best ear quality overall were spinosad in carrageenan or corn oil, and Bt in carrageenan.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Emulsifiers had no effect on sweet corn ear quality.
- Taxon
- Corn
Zea mays subsp. mayst0 - Treatment
- emulsifierse0
- Outcome
- ear qualitye0
- Direction
- no effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no effects of emulsifiers on ear quality”
t0“Sweet Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Emulsifiers slightly reduced caterpillar damage in one of two years.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- emulsifierse1
- Interactor
- caterpillare0pest
- Outcome
- caterpillar damagee0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- in one of the two yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“slight reduction in caterpillar damage in one of the two years”
e1“There were no effects of emulsifiers on ear quality”
t0“Sweet Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn, soy, canola and safflower oils did not differ in corn earworm control.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- corn, soy, canola, and safflower oilse0
- Interactor
- corn earworm
.jpg?width=60)
Helicoverpa zeae0pest - Outcome
- corn earworm controle0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- corn, soy, canola, and safflower oilse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“There were no differences among corn, soy, canola, and safflower oils in corn earworm control or tip development.”
t0“Sweet Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn, soy, canola and safflower oils did not differ in corn tip development.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- corn, soy, canola, and safflower oilse0
- Outcome
- tip developmente0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- corn, soy, canola, and safflower oilse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no differences among corn, soy, canola, and safflower oils in corn earworm control or tip development.”
t0“Sweet Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Carrageenan had the least effect on sweet corn ear development relative to corn and paraffinic oils.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Organ / stage
- kernels at the tipe0
- Treatment
- carrageenan carriere0
- Outcome
- ear developmente0
- Direction
- least effecte0
- Comparator
- corn oil or paraffinic oil (JMS Stylet Oil)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The carrageenan carrier had the least effect upon ear development as measured by the length of nonpollinated kernels at the tip, compared to corn oil or paraffinic oil (JMS Stylet Oil)”
t0“Sweet Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Corn and paraffinic oils caused the greatest tip damage and oily discoloration.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- corn oil or paraffinic oil (JMS Stylet Oil)e0
- Outcome
- tip damage as well as an oily discoloratione0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“corn oil or paraffinic oil (JMS Stylet Oil), which caused the greatest tip damage as well as an oily discoloration”
t0“Sweet Corn”
Claim · model-written summary
Spinosad in carrageenan or corn oil and Bt in carrageenan gave the best overall ear quality.
- Taxon
- CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
- Treatment
- spinosad in carrageenan or corn oil, and Bt in carrageenane0
- Outcome
- best ear quality overalle0
- Direction
- beste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The carrier-pesticide combinations with the best ear quality overall were spinosad in carrageenan or corn oil, and Bt in carrageenan.”
t0“Sweet Corn”
The same questions in other papers
Carthamus tinctorius · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
Brassica napus var. napus · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
food additive carrier · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Zea mays subsp. mays · Helicoverpa zea · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →Zea mays subsp. mays · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
33 papers in the same direction as this paper · 60 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
90 papers more in this group
See all 94 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.