Paper · 2013 · Annals of Plant Protection Sciences

Evaluation of Mak All Season Horticulture Mineral Oil against Citrus thrips, Scirtothrips dorsalis Hood and rust mite, Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Ashm.)

C.N. Rao; V. J. Shivankar; V.N. Dhengre; et al.

6
claims
15
verbatim quotes
4
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Per cent infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits by citrus thrips was significantly less at dose 2.5% (6.2% -32.6% infested fruits) than 1.0%, 0.5% and 0.1% (11.2 – 65.6% infested fruits) but was on par with the doses 1.5%, 2.0% (7.5 – 10.0% infested fruits) during 2009 and 2.0% (10.12–38.0% infested fruits) during 2010 and 2011. In case of rust mite, % infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits was significantly less at dose 2.5% (8.1–14.8% infested fruits) than other treatments (20.0 - 55.8% infested fruits) but was on par with the dose 2.0% (10.3–16.6% infested fruits). As citrus thrips and rust mites occurred together on citrus fruits, a spraying schedule using Mak All Season HMO @ 2.0% to simultaneously control both pests can now be developed based on the present investigation.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At 2.5%, fruit infestation by citrus thrips was significantly below the 1.0%, 0.5%, and 0.1% doses.

Taxon
Nagpur mandarine0
Treatment
dose 2.5%e0
Interactor
citrus thripse0pest
Outcome
Per cent infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits by citrus thripse0
Direction
lesse0
Value
6.2% -32.6%e0
Comparator
1.0%, 0.5% and 0.1%e0

Verbatim

e0

“Per cent infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits by citrus thrips was significantly less at dose 2.5% (6.2% -32.6% infested fruits) than 1.0%, 0.5% and 0.1% (11.2 – 65.6% infested fruits)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–185 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2.5% thrips treatment was on par with 1.5% and 2.0% in 2009.

Taxon
Nagpur mandarine1
Treatment
2.5%e1
Interactor
citrus thripse1pest
Outcome
infested fruitse0
Direction
on pare0
Value
7.5 – 10.0%e0
Comparator
1.5%, 2.0%e0

Verbatim

e0

“but was on par with the doses 1.5%, 2.0% (7.5 – 10.0% infested fruits) during 2009”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 186–268 · show in text ↑
e1

“Per cent infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits by citrus thrips was significantly less at dose 2.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2.5% thrips treatment was on par with 2.0% during 2010 and 2011.

Taxon
Nagpur mandarine1
Treatment
2.5%e1
Interactor
citrus thripse1pest
Outcome
infested fruitse0
Value
10.12–38.0%e0
Comparator
2.0%e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“and 2.0% (10.12–38.0% infested fruits) during 2010 and 2011”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 269–328 · show in text ↑
e1

“Per cent infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits by citrus thrips was significantly less at dose 2.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–99 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

At 2.5%, rust mite infestation was significantly below other treatments.

Taxon
Nagpur mandarine0
Treatment
dose 2.5%e0
Interactor
rust mitet0pest
Outcome
% infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruitse0
Direction
lesse0
Value
8.1–14.8%e0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

Verbatim

e0

“% infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits was significantly less at dose 2.5% (8.1–14.8% infested fruits) than other treatments (20.0 - 55.8% infested fruits)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 352–508 · show in text ↑
t0

“rust mite”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–117 · show in text ↑
t1

“rust mite”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–117 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2.5% rust mite treatment was on par with 2.0%.

Taxon
Nagpur mandarine1
Treatment
2.5%e1
Interactor
rust mitet0pest
Outcome
infested fruitse0
Direction
on pare0
Value
10.3–16.6%e0
Comparator
dose 2.0%e0

Verbatim

e0

“but was on par with the dose 2.0% (10.3–16.6% infested fruits)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 509–571 · show in text ↑
t0

“rust mite”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–117 · show in text ↑
t1

“rust mite”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 108–117 · show in text ↑
e1

“% infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits was significantly less at dose 2.5%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 352–427 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors proposed developing a 2.0% mineral oil spray schedule for simultaneous thrips and mite control.

Taxon
Nagpur mandarint0
Interactor
citrus thripst0pest
Second interactor
rust mitet1pest
Outcome
a spraying schedule using Mak All Season HMO @ 2.0% to simultaneously control both pestse0

Verbatim

e0

“a spraying schedule using Mak All Season HMO @ 2.0% to simultaneously control both pests can now be developed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 641–750 · show in text ↑
t0

“Nagpur mandarin fruits by citrus thrips”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 24–63 · show in text ↑
t1

“In case of rust mite, % infestation of Nagpur mandarin fruits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 330–391 · show in text ↑