Abstract
The pea leaf weevil (Sitona lineatus L.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) is a serious pest of field pea ( Pisum sativum L.) and faba bean ( Vicia faba L.) (Fabales: Fabaceae) in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America. Foliar feeding by adults and root nodule consumption by larvae reduces seed yield and N contributions to the soil. Foliar insecticides have limited efficacy against pea leaf weevil, prompting this study to investigate an integrated approach. Nitrogen fertilizer, Rhizobium inoculant, and thiamethoxam (systemic insecticide) were assessed alone and in combination for their effects on pea leaf weevil damage to field pea plants and seed yield. Nitrogen fertilizer did not reduce foliar feeding but did reduce root nodules by 35 to 43%. In 2008 only, N fertilizer improved yield by 0.48 t ha −1 relative to nonfertilized plots. Thiamethoxam seed treatment reduced foliar feeding for 40 to 50 d after planting in 2008 and 2009 but had no significant impact on seed yield. Rhizobium inoculation increased yield by 0.74 t ha −1 compared to noninoculated plots in 2008. No effects of N fertilizer, Rhizobium inoculant or thiamethoxam on yield were observed in 2009, probably because root nodule damage was not affected by any treatment. Results of this study suggest that the most efficient method of preventing yield loss due to S. lineatus infestation is to inoculate field peas. Further investigation of thiamethoxam, preferably in large‐scale production systems, is required to better understand the efficacy of thiamethoxam against pea leaf weevil.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilizer did not reduce pea leaf weevil foliar feeding.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen fertilizer did not reduce foliar feeding but did reduce root nodules by 35 to 43%.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilizer reduced root nodules by 35 to 43%.
- Taxon
- field peae1
- Treatment
- Nitrogen fertilizere0
- Outcome
- root nodulese0
- Direction
- reducee0
- Value
- 35 to 43%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen fertilizer did not reduce foliar feeding but did reduce root nodules by 35 to 43%.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen fertilizer increased 2008 yield by 0.48 t ha −1 versus nonfertilized plots.
Verbatim
e0“In 2008 only, N fertilizer improved yield by 0.48 t ha −1 relative to nonfertilized plots.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Thiamethoxam seed treatment reduced weevil foliar feeding for 40 to 50 days in both years.
- Taxon
- field peae1
- Treatment
- Thiamethoxam seed treatmente0
- Interactor
- Sitona lineatus
_(3370392516).jpg?width=60)
Sitona lineatust1pest - Outcome
- foliar feedinge0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 40 to 50 de0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_(3370392516).jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Thiamethoxam seed treatment reduced foliar feeding for 40 to 50 d after planting in 2008 and 2009 but had no significant impact on seed yield.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
t1“Sitona lineatus”
Claim · model-written summary
Thiamethoxam had no significant impact on seed yield.
- Taxon
- field peae1
- Treatment
- Thiamethoxam seed treatmente0
- Outcome
- seed yielde0
- Direction
- no significant impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Thiamethoxam seed treatment reduced foliar feeding for 40 to 50 d after planting in 2008 and 2009 but had no significant impact on seed yield.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobium inoculation increased 2008 yield by 0.74 t ha −1 relative to noninoculated plots.
- Taxon
- field peae1
- Treatment
- Rhizobium inoculatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 0.74 t ha −1e0
- Comparator
- noninoculated plotse0
RhizobiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rhizobium inoculation increased yield by 0.74 t ha −1 compared to noninoculated plots in 2008.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
No treatment affected yield in 2009.
- Taxon
- field peae1
- Treatment
- N fertilizer, Rhizobium inoculant or thiamethoxame0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- No effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“No effects of N fertilizer, Rhizobium inoculant or thiamethoxam on yield were observed in 2009, probably because root nodule damage was not affected by any treatment.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Root nodule damage was not affected by any treatment in 2009.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“root nodule damage was not affected by any treatment.”
e1“field pea ( Pisum sativum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend inoculating field peas to prevent yield loss from weevil infestation.
- Taxon
- field pease0
- Interactor
- S. lineatusSitona lineatuse0pest
- Outcome
- inoculate field pease0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Results of this study suggest that the most efficient method of preventing yield loss due to S. lineatus infestation is to inoculate field peas.”
The same questions in other papers
thiamethoxam · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
Rhizobium · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →thiamethoxam · Sitona lineatus · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
inoculation · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Results differ
107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
123 papers more in this group
See all 127 papers →fertilization · pest · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →fertilization · symbiosis · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →seed treatment · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 papers →fertilization · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
215 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
236 papers more in this group
See all 240 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.