Abstract
The wasp Beetle, Chlorophorus varius Mull. (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) is a serious pest on peach trees(Prunus persica L.) in Egypt in new reclaimed lands as well as in old valley lands. To eliminate the environmental pollution and magnifying the biological control agents, horticulture (dormant and summer pruning) , mechanical (worming) and local chemical (local painting and spraying treatments) were evaluated. Trials were carried out at El-Khatatba district Menofia governorate during three successive years (1994/95, 1995/96 and 1996/97). The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning, 6.49% due to worming, 62.98 and 64.80% due to local painting and local spraying as well as 79.05 and 84.37% due to pruning, worming and local painting treatments and pruning, worming and local spraying treatments when applied for only one year. Applying the previous treatments for two successive years the average percentages reduction of the infestation resulted 36.39 , 12.63 , 46.33 , 10.47 , 75.46 , 78.17 , 92.71 and 95.76%, respectively .The accumulative effect the previous treatments for three successive years the percentages reduction of infestation were56.6,19.3 ,65.5,14.5,84.8,86.2,96.6 and 98.6% , respectively . Dormant pruning increased the yield production by 23.8-39.3 %yet summer pruning either reduced the yield by 2.7% in the second season or increased the yield by 2.3% in the third season . However, dormant and summer pruning increased the yield production by 40.0-44.2% .The quality of fruits was improved as the mean number of fruits / tree and the mean number of fruits/kg were reduced by 35.3-38.0 % and 55.1-55.7%, respectively .
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Dormant pruning reduced borer infestation by 18.47% in one year.
- Taxon
- PEACH
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- dormant pruninge0
- Interactor
- borere0pest
- Outcome
- borer infestatione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 18.47e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer pruning reduced borer infestation by 8.83% in one year.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- summer pruninge0
- Interactor
- borere0pest
- Outcome
- borer infestatione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 8.83e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined dormant and summer pruning reduced infestation by 22.91% in one year.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- dormant and summer pruninge0
- Interactor
- borere0pest
- Outcome
- borer infestatione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 22.91%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Worming reduced infestation by 6.49% in one year.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6.49% due to worming”
t0“PEACH”
e1“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Local painting reduced infestation by 62.98% in one year.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- local paintinge0
- Outcome
- infestatione1
- Direction
- reductione1
- Value
- 62.98e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“62.98 and 64.80% due to local painting and local spraying”
t0“PEACH”
e1“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Local spraying reduced infestation by 64.80% in one year.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- local sprayinge0
- Outcome
- infestatione1
- Direction
- reductione1
- Value
- 64.80%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“62.98 and 64.80% due to local painting and local spraying”
t0“PEACH”
e1“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning, worming and local painting reduced infestation by 79.05% in one year.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- pruning, worming and local painting treatmentse0
- Outcome
- infestatione1
- Direction
- reductione1
- Value
- 79.05e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“79.05 and 84.37% due to pruning, worming and local painting treatments and pruning, worming and local spraying treatments when applied for only one year”
t0“PEACH”
e1“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning, worming and local spraying reduced infestation by 84.37% in one year.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- pruning, worming and local spraying treatmentse0
- Outcome
- infestatione1
- Direction
- reductione1
- Value
- 84.37%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“79.05 and 84.37% due to pruning, worming and local painting treatments and pruning, worming and local spraying treatments when applied for only one year”
t0“PEACH”
e1“The respective percentages reduction in the borer infestation were 18.47 , 8.83 and 22.91% due to dormant pruning, summer pruning, dormant and summer pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Two years of the eight treatments reduced infestation by 36.39%, 12.63%, 46.33%, 10.47%, 75.46%, 78.17%, 92.71%, and 95.76%, respectively.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- average percentages reduction of the infestatione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 36.39 , 12.63 , 46.33 , 10.47 , 75.46 , 78.17 , 92.71 and 95.76%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Applying the previous treatments for two successive years the average percentages reduction of the infestation resulted 36.39 , 12.63 , 46.33 , 10.47 , 75.46 , 78.17 , 92.71 and 95.76%, respectively”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Three years of the eight treatments reduced infestation by 56.6%, 19.3%, 65.5%, 14.5%, 84.8%, 86.2%, 96.6%, and 98.6%, respectively.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- percentages reduction of infestatione0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 56.6,19.3 ,65.5,14.5,84.8,86.2,96.6 and 98.6%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The accumulative effect the previous treatments for three successive years the percentages reduction of infestation were56.6,19.3 ,65.5,14.5,84.8,86.2,96.6 and 98.6% , respectively”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Dormant pruning raised yield by 23.8–39.3%.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Dormant pruninge0
- Outcome
- yield productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 23.8-39.3 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dormant pruning increased the yield production by 23.8-39.3 %”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer pruning lowered yield by 2.7% in the second season.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- summer pruninge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 2.7%e0
- Qualifier
- second seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“summer pruning either reduced the yield by 2.7% in the second season or increased the yield by 2.3% in the third season”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer pruning raised yield by 2.3% in the third season.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- summer pruninge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.3%e0
- Qualifier
- third seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“summer pruning either reduced the yield by 2.7% in the second season or increased the yield by 2.3% in the third season”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined dormant and summer pruning raised yield by 40.0–44.2%.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- dormant and summer pruninge0
- Outcome
- yield productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 40.0-44.2%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dormant and summer pruning increased the yield production by 40.0-44.2%”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit quality improved, with mean fruits per tree down 35.3–38.0%.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- mean number of fruits / treee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 35.3-38.0 %e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The quality of fruits was improved as the mean number of fruits / tree and the mean number of fruits/kg were reduced by 35.3-38.0 % and 55.1-55.7%, respectively”
t0“PEACH”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean fruits per kilogram fell 55.1–55.7%.
- Taxon
- PEACHPrunus persicat0
- Outcome
- mean number of fruits/kge0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 55.1-55.7%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The quality of fruits was improved as the mean number of fruits / tree and the mean number of fruits/kg were reduced by 35.3-38.0 % and 55.1-55.7%, respectively”
t0“PEACH”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · pest · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · pest · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →pruning · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
93 papers more in this group
See all 97 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.