Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Releasing predatory mites at 1 predator per 24 BGM in 1996 did not significantly reduce pest mites in corn compared with control fields.

A claim from Survey and evaluation of native and released predators of the Banks grass mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) in corn and surrounding vegetation. · 2000

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Releasing predatory mites at 1 predator per 24 BGM in 1996 did not significantly reduce pest mites in corn compared with control fields.

Taxon
field corne0
Treatment
1 predator per 24 BGMe1
Interactor
BGMe1pest
Second interactor
Neoseiulus californicusNeoseiulus californicuse1biocontrol_agent
Outcome
pest mitese1
Direction
did not significantly reducee1
Comparator
control fieldse1

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSettingValueQualifier

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

Neoseiulus californicus
Neoseiulus californicus · Second interactor余世文 · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The Banks grass mite (BGM), Oligonychus pratensis (Banks), is an economically important pest in field corn, Zea mays L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1988–2107
e1

“In 1996, the release of Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman), Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor), and Ga landromus occidentalis Nesbitt in roughly equal proportions at a ratio of 1 predator per 24 BGM did not significantly reduce pest mites compared to control fields”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 521–780

Title

Survey and evaluation of native and released predators of the Banks grass mite (Acari: Tetranychidae) in corn and surrounding vegetation.

Matthew T. Messenger; Lawrent L. Buschman; James R. Nechols Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 2000

Other claims from this paper (7)

Record rev-2e10ec3269e340f563747c68e90a43e71aa1f7f1513b7769d25e687469d59cc1 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

biocontrol · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 9 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this claim · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
  4. positive
  5. positive
  6. positive
  7. positive
  8. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.