Abstract
Three methods of directional insecticide application against Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations in the late growth stages of sorghum and maize were compared over two seasons. An insecticide mixture consisting of endosulfan and deltamethrin was applied 10 days after artificial inoculation of plants with newly hatched larvae of both species. Treatments consisted of insecticide applications, directed into the whorl (during the flag-leaf stage), onto the sides of plants, or a split application directed both into the whorl and onto the sides of plants. The last treatment was also applied at double the dosage rate, to determine the possible dilution effect resulting from split applications. Reduced dosage rate into the whorls, resulting from the split application, did not result in reduced efficacy of control. Species x treatment interactions occurred in maize and sorghum. Side applications of insecticide were ineffective in both crops. Whorl and split applications were effective and showed similar control of larval numbers in maize, while whorl applications provided best control in sorghum. Split applications resulted in the lowest yield losses in maize and sorghum. The efficacy of the various treatments is discussed in relation to ecological differences between the two borer species.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Splitting insecticide application did not reduce efficacy despite a lower dose directed into whorls.
- Treatment
- split applicatione0
- Interactor
- Busseola fusca
Busseola fuscae1pest - Second interactor
- Chilo partellus
_Figure_27c.jpg?width=60)
Chilo partelluse1pest - Outcome
- efficacy of controle0
- Direction
- did not result in reducede0
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Figure_27c.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
t0“sorghum and maize”
e0“Reduced dosage rate into the whorls, resulting from the split application, did not result in reduced efficacy of control.”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Species by treatment interactions occurred in maize.
- Treatment
- treatmente0
- Interactor
- Busseola fuscaBusseola fuscae1pest
- Second interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partelluse1pest
- Outcome
- Species x treatment interactionse0
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Species x treatment interactions occurred in maize and sorghum.”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Species by treatment interactions occurred in sorghum.
- Treatment
- treatmente0
- Interactor
- Busseola fuscaBusseola fuscae1pest
- Second interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partelluse1pest
- Outcome
- Species x treatment interactionse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Species x treatment interactions occurred in maize and sorghum.”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Side insecticide applications were ineffective in maize.
- Treatment
- Side applications of insecticidee0
- Interactor
- Busseola fuscaBusseola fuscae1pest
- Second interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partelluse1pest
- Outcome
- ineffectivee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“sorghum and maize”
e0“Side applications of insecticide were ineffective in both crops.”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Side insecticide applications were ineffective in sorghum.
- Treatment
- Side applications of insecticidee0
- Interactor
- Busseola fuscaBusseola fuscae1pest
- Second interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partelluse1pest
- Outcome
- ineffectivee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“sorghum and maize”
e0“Side applications of insecticide were ineffective in both crops.”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Whorl applications effectively controlled larval numbers in maize.
- Treatment
- Whorle0
- Interactor
- Busseola fuscaBusseola fuscae1pest
- Second interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partelluse1pest
- Outcome
- control of larval numberse0
- Direction
- effectivee0
- Comparator
- split applicationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whorl and split applications were effective and showed similar control of larval numbers in maize”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Split applications effectively controlled larval numbers in maize, similarly to whorl applications.
- Treatment
- split applicationse0
- Interactor
- Busseola fuscaBusseola fuscae1pest
- Second interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partelluse1pest
- Outcome
- control of larval numberse0
- Direction
- effectivee0
- Comparator
- Whorle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Whorl and split applications were effective and showed similar control of larval numbers in maize”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Whorl applications provided the best control in sorghum.
- Treatment
- whorl applicationse0
- Interactor
- Busseola fuscaBusseola fuscae1pest
- Second interactor
- Chilo partellusChilo partelluse1pest
- Outcome
- controle0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whorl applications provided best control in sorghum.”
e1“Busseola fusca and Chilo partellus infestations”
Claim · model-written summary
Split applications produced the lowest yield losses in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Split applications resulted in the lowest yield losses in maize and sorghum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Split applications produced the lowest yield losses in sorghum.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Split applications resulted in the lowest yield losses in maize and sorghum.”
The same questions in other papers
insecticide · Busseola fusca · SorghumPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
insecticide · Busseola fusca · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
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.