Claim · model-written summary
The grasshopper-associated loss was less than simulated defoliation loss.
- Taxon
- cassava
Manihot esculentat0 - Outcome
- lossese0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- cropping took place sooner after the end of defoliatione0
- Comparator
- simulated defoliatione0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“losses being less than those caused by simulated defoliation because cropping took place sooner after the end of defoliation”
t0“cassava”
Title
W. W. Page; J. R. W. Harris; A. Youdeowei Bulletin of Entomological Research 1980. doi:10.1017/s0007485300009858
Other claims from this paper (8)
- Intervention effect Defoliation significantly reduced tuber yield only late in the dry season after leaf regeneration began.
- Intervention effect Late dry-season defoliation delayed leaf regeneration.
- Intervention effect Six weeks of continuous end-of-season defoliation caused 63% mean crop loss.
- Intervention effect Simulated debarking caused 49% mean crop loss.
- Intervention effect Confined grasshoppers caused 36% mean crop loss.
- Intervention effect Defoliation before wet-season leaf regeneration caused no significant crop loss.
- Observation Natural grasshopper defoliation differed considerably in amount and timing across years.
- Observation The authors conclude grasshopper damage causes significant crop loss only occasionally.