Claim · model-written summary
Crop protection efficacy was higher in cash crops than food crops.
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“The efficacy of crop protection was higher in cash crops than in food crops”
Title
E.-C. OERKE The Journal of Agricultural Science 2005. doi:10.1017/s0021859605005708
Other claims from this paper (15)
- Observation Potential global pest loss was about 50% in wheat.
- Observation Potential global pest loss exceeded 80% in cotton.
- Observation Actual pest losses were estimated at 26–29% for soybean, wheat, and cotton.
- Observation Actual pest loss was estimated at 31% for maize.
- Observation Actual pest loss was estimated at 37% for rice.
- Observation Actual pest loss was estimated at 40% for potatoes.
- Observation Weeds caused the largest potential loss, 34%.
- Observation Animal pests caused 18% potential crop loss.
- Observation Pathogens caused 16% potential crop loss.
- Observation Worldwide weed-control efficacy exceeded control of animal pests and diseases.
- Association Crop losses did not significantly decrease over 40 years despite increased pesticide use.
- Mechanism Pesticides enabled changes in production systems and higher crop productivity without higher pest losses.
- Recommendation Authors recommend integrated pest and crop management with thresholds and reduced pesticide application.
- Recommendation Minor crop losses are often economically acceptable.
- Association Authors advise that increasing attainable yield requires adequate crop protection against pests.