Paper · 1999 · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)

Soil-Applied Insecticides for Whitefly Control in Fall Cantaloupes

Kai Umeda

8
claims
17
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

CGA-293343 and Admire applied to the soil at planting time provided good control of WF at rating dates 34, 45, and 52 DAP. Cantaloupes treated with CGA-293343 at 0.09 lb AI/A showed a greater increase in number of immatures after 45 DAP compared to the CGA-293343 at 0.18 lb AI/A applied on melons. At 59 DAP, the higher rate of CGA-293343 continued to reduce the number of immatures compared to the lower rate and untreated check. Admire treated melons with or without a subsequent foliar insecticide treatments showed reduced WF nymphs at 45 and 52 DAP or 10 and 17 days after treatment (DAT) of foliar applications. Foliar applications of Applaud or Asana plus endosulfan did not significantly reduce WF immatures compared to a single at-planting time application of Admire. The application of either foliar treatment did not extend the length of control beyond that offered by the Admire treatment.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil applied CGA-293343 controlled whiteflies at 34, 45 and 52 days after planting.

Treatment
CGA-293343e0
Interactor
WFe0pest
Outcome
control of WFe0
Direction
good controle0
Qualifier
34, 45, and 52 DAPe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CGA-293343 and Admire applied to the soil at planting time provided good control of WF at rating dates 34, 45, and 52 DAP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–121 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil-Applied Insecticides for Whitefly Control in Fall Cantaloupes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Soil applied Admire controlled whiteflies at 34, 45 and 52 days after planting.

Treatment
Admiree0
Interactor
WFe0pest
Outcome
control of WFe0
Direction
good controle0
Qualifier
34, 45, and 52 DAPe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CGA-293343 and Admire applied to the soil at planting time provided good control of WF at rating dates 34, 45, and 52 DAP”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–121 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil-Applied Insecticides for Whitefly Control in Fall Cantaloupes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 0.09 lb AI/A, CGA-293343 produced a greater increase in whitefly immatures after 45 days than at 0.18 lb AI/A.

Treatment
CGA-293343 at 0.09 lb AI/Ae0
Interactor
WFe1pest
Outcome
number of immaturese0
Direction
greater increasee0
Qualifier
after 45 DAPe0
Comparator
CGA-293343 at 0.18 lb AI/Ae0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cantaloupes treated with CGA-293343 at 0.09 lb AI/A showed a greater increase in number of immatures after 45 DAP compared to the CGA-293343 at 0.18 lb AI/A applied on melons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 123–297 · show in text ↑
e1

“Admire treated melons with or without a subsequent foliar insecticide treatments showed reduced WF nymphs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 432–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At 59 days, the higher CGA-293343 rate reduced whitefly immatures relative to the lower rate and untreated check.

Treatment
higher rate of CGA-293343e0
Interactor
WFe1pest
Outcome
number of immaturese0
Direction
reducee0
Qualifier
59 DAPe0
Comparator
lower rate and untreated checke0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At 59 DAP, the higher rate of CGA-293343 continued to reduce the number of immatures compared to the lower rate and untreated check”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 299–430 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil-Applied Insecticides for Whitefly Control in Fall Cantaloupes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–66 · show in text ↑
e1

“Admire treated melons with or without a subsequent foliar insecticide treatments showed reduced WF nymphs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 432–537 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Admire treated melons with or without foliar insecticides had fewer whitefly nymphs at 45 and 52 days.

Taxon
melonsCucumis meloe0
Treatment
Admiree0
Interactor
WFe0pest
Outcome
WF nymphse0
Direction
reducede0
Qualifier
45 and 52 DAPe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cucumis melo
Cucumis melo · TaxonUSDA photo by Scott Bauer. Image Number K7355-11. · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Admire treated melons with or without a subsequent foliar insecticide treatments showed reduced WF nymphs at 45 and 52 DAP or 10 and 17 days after treatment (DAT) of foliar applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 432–617 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Applaud foliar application did not significantly reduce whitefly immatures relative to Admire alone.

Treatment
Applaude0
Interactor
WFe0pest
Outcome
WF immaturese0
Direction
did not significantly reducee0
Comparator
single at-planting time application of Admiree0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar applications of Applaud or Asana plus endosulfan did not significantly reduce WF immatures compared to a single at-planting time application of Admire”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 619–776 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil-Applied Insecticides for Whitefly Control in Fall Cantaloupes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Asana plus endosulfan foliar application did not significantly reduce whitefly immatures relative to Admire alone.

Treatment
Asana plus endosulfane0
Interactor
WFe0pest
Outcome
WF immaturese0
Direction
did not significantly reducee0
Comparator
single at-planting time application of Admiree0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Foliar applications of Applaud or Asana plus endosulfan did not significantly reduce WF immatures compared to a single at-planting time application of Admire”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 619–776 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil-Applied Insecticides for Whitefly Control in Fall Cantaloupes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neither foliar treatment extended whitefly control beyond Admire alone.

Treatment
either foliar treatmente0
Interactor
WFe1pest
Outcome
length of controle0
Direction
did not extende0
Comparator
Admire treatmente0

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

Cucumis melo var. cantalupo
Cucumis melo var. cantalupo · TaxonRasbak at Dutch Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The application of either foliar treatment did not extend the length of control beyond that offered by the Admire treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 778–901 · show in text ↑
t0

“Soil-Applied Insecticides for Whitefly Control in Fall Cantaloupes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–66 · show in text ↑
e1

“Admire treated melons with or without a subsequent foliar insecticide treatments showed reduced WF nymphs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 432–537 · show in text ↑

application · control · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 5 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.