Claim · model-written summary
Worldwide weed-control efficacy exceeded control of animal pests and diseases.
- Taxon
- cropse1
- Outcome
- worldwide efficacye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- control of animal pests or diseasese0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValueQualifier
Verbatim
e0“worldwide efficacy was considerably higher than for the control of animal pests or diseases”
e1“Productivity of crops grown for human consumption”
e2“Weed control can be managed mechanically or chemically”
e7“weeds produced the highest potential loss (34%)”
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 Crop protection efficacy was higher in cash crops than food crops.
- 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.