Paper · 2024 · Pest Management Science

Effects of succession crops and soil tillage on suppressing the syndrome ‘basses richesses’ vector Pentastiridius leporinus in sugar beet

René Pfitzer; Michael Rostás; Patrick Häußermann; et al.

9
claims
13
verbatim quotes
17
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pentastiridius leporinus (Hemiptera: Cixiidae) is the most important vector of syndrome 'basses richesses' (SBR), a new disease that leads to severe economic losses in sugar beet. In this study, different soil tillage methods (ploughing and cultivator) and crops (winter wheat, spring wheat, maize and bare soil) following SBR-infested sugar beet were tested as potential management options in field trials. In the laboratory, the survival and development of first and third instar nymphs on wheat and maize was studied to further assess their suitability as host plants. RESULTS: In five out of seven field sites, reduced soil tillage had no effect on adult planthopper emergence compared to ploughing. In two sites, reduced tillage resulted in higher emergence rates. In nearly all field sites, up to 98.9% fewer emerging adults were detected in bare soil and maize, when compared to winter wheat. Under laboratory conditions, the lowest survival rate was found in first instar nymphs feeding on maize seedlings (4.2%), while 66.7% survived on wheat, over a period of 300 days. In contrast, 73.3% and 70% of third instar nymphs survived on wheat and maize over a period of 150 days. CONCLUSION: Soil tillage had little effect against Pentastiridius leporinus. Maize is a poor host for first instars but a suitable resource for third instar nymphs, the stage which encounters maize under field conditions. Hence, reductions in planthopper emergence in the field were likely caused by starvation due to the long host-free period between sugar beet harvest and the sowing of maize. © 2024 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In five of seven field sites, reduced soil tillage had no effect on adult planthopper emergence compared with ploughing.

Treatment
reduced soil tillagee0
Interactor
planthoppere0pest
Outcome
adult planthopper emergencee0
Direction
no effecte0
Comparator
ploughinge0

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

e0

“In five out of seven field sites, reduced soil tillage had no effect on adult planthopper emergence compared to ploughing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 593–714 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 127–137 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In two field sites, reduced tillage resulted in higher emergence rates of the planthopper.

Treatment
reduced tillagee0
Outcome
emergence ratese0
Direction
highere0

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

e0

“In two sites, reduced tillage resulted in higher emergence rates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 716–780 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 127–137 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Up to 98.9% fewer adults emerged in bare soil than in winter wheat in nearly all field sites.

Treatment
bare soile0
Outcome
emerging adultse0
Direction
fewere0
Value
98.9%e0
Comparator
winter wheate0

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

e0

“up to 98.9% fewer emerging adults were detected in bare soil and maize, when compared to winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 809–910 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 127–137 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Up to 98.9% fewer adults emerged in maize than in winter wheat in nearly all field sites.

Treatment
maizee0
Outcome
emerging adultse0
Direction
fewere0
Value
98.9%e0
Comparator
winter wheate0

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

e0

“up to 98.9% fewer emerging adults were detected in bare soil and maize, when compared to winter wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 809–910 · show in text ↑
t0

“sugar beet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 127–137 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under laboratory conditions, survival of first instar nymphs feeding on maize seedlings was lowest, at 4.2%.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
first instar nymphse0pest
Outcome
lowest survival ratee0
Value
4.2%e0
Setting
laboratory conditionse0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Under laboratory conditions, the lowest survival rate was found in first instar nymphs feeding on maize seedlings (4.2%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–1032 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Of the first instar nymphs, 66.7% survived on wheat over 300 days.

Outcome
survivede0
Value
66.7%e0
Qualifier
over a period of 300 dayse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“66.7% survived on wheat, over a period of 300 days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1040–1090 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Of the third instar nymphs, 73.3% survived on wheat over 150 days.

Interactor
third instar nymphse0pest
Outcome
third instar nymphs survivede0
Value
73.3%e0
Qualifier
over a period of 150 dayse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“73.3% and 70% of third instar nymphs survived on wheat and maize over a period of 150 days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1105–1195 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Of the third instar nymphs, 70% survived on maize over 150 days.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Interactor
third instar nymphse0pest
Outcome
third instar nymphs survivede0
Value
70%e0
Qualifier
over a period of 150 dayse0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“73.3% and 70% of third instar nymphs survived on wheat and maize over a period of 150 days”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1105–1195 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that reductions in planthopper emergence in the field were likely caused by starvation due to the long host-free period between sugar beet harvest and maize sowing.

Outcome
reductions in planthopper emergencee0
Qualifier
starvation due to the long host-free periode0

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

e0

“reductions in planthopper emergence in the field were likely caused by starvation due to the long host-free period between sugar beet harvest and the sowing of maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1426–1591 · show in text ↑

Zea mays · pest · Beta vulgaris (beet)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

tillage · pest · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

tillage · growth · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results

24 papers: 15 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

20 papers more in this group

See all 24 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.