Paper · 1994 · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)

Evaluation of Electrostatic Application of Insectides for Control of Sweet Potato Whitefly on Cauliflower

John C. Palumbo; Wayne Coates

3
claims
7
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Various rates of endosulfan and pennethrin were applied to cauliflower with electrostatic, hydraulic air- assist and conventional hydraulic spray systems. Sweetpotato whitefly abundance and plant growth were measured at several intervals during the study. In addition, spray coverage was measured with each insecticide application. No differences in whitefly control or spray deposition were observed among the three sprayers. However, imidacloprid, provided excellent control. The significance of the spray technologies for whitefly control and future modifications are discussed.

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 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Whitefly control did not differ among the three spray systems.

Treatment
three sprayerse0
Interactor
Whiteflyt0pest
Outcome
whitefly controle0
Direction
No differencese0
Comparator
three sprayerse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No differences in whitefly control or spray deposition were observed among the three sprayers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Potato Whitefly on Cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–105 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spray deposition did not differ among the three spray systems.

Treatment
three sprayerse0
Outcome
spray depositione0
Direction
No differencese0
Comparator
three sprayerse0

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No differences in whitefly control or spray deposition were observed among the three sprayers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 332–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–105 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Imidacloprid provided excellent whitefly control.

Treatment
imidaclopride0
Interactor
Sweetpotato whiteflyBemisia tabacie1pest
Outcome
controle0
Direction
excellent controle0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bemisia tabaci
Bemisia tabaci · InteractorPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“However, imidacloprid, provided excellent control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 427–476 · show in text ↑
e1

“Sweetpotato whitefly abundance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 155–185 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 94–105 · show in text ↑

imidacloprid · Bemisia tabaci · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)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 →

application · control · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 7 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  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.