Paper · 1989 · Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture

Effects of low rates of pesticides on the control of pests and diseases of apples

TJ Wicks; AR Granger

5
claims
8
verbatim quotes
4
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Fungicides and insecticides used at the recommended rate, and reduced recommended rates were applied at low volume (100 L ha-1) to apple trees in field experiments in South Australia from 1985 to 1988. At harvest the incidence of fruit damaged by fungi and insects was assessed on Golden Delicious, Red Delicious, Jonathan and Granny Smith cultivars. Mixtures of penconazole and mancozeb applied at the recommended rates of 800 mL and 4.5 kg ha-1 respectively as well as 25% and 10% of the recommended rates controlled apple scab completely in 1986, but were less effective in 1987. Azinphos-methyl applied at the recommended rate of 2.7 kg and 25% of the recommended rate reduced codling moth infestation to commercially acceptable levels of <2 % on Red Delicious only in 1987. Considerable cost savings are possible by using low rates of pesticides. Our results suggest that the use of low rates is more applicable to low valued cultivars such as Jonathans and orchards with low levels of pest and disease.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Penconazole plus mancozeb at full, 25%, and 10% rates completely controlled apple scab in 1986.

Treatment
penconazole and mancozebe0
Outcome
apple scabe0
Direction
controllede0
Qualifier
in 1986e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mixtures of penconazole and mancozeb applied at the recommended rates of 800 mL and 4.5 kg ha-1 respectively as well as 25% and 10% of the recommended rates controlled apple scab completely in 1986, but were less effective in 1987.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 351–582 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The mixture was less effective against apple scab in 1987.

Treatment
penconazole and mancozebe0
Outcome
apple scabe0
Direction
less effectivee0
Comparator
1986e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mixtures of penconazole and mancozeb applied at the recommended rates of 800 mL and 4.5 kg ha-1 respectively as well as 25% and 10% of the recommended rates controlled apple scab completely in 1986, but were less effective in 1987.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 351–582 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Azinphos-methyl at full or 25% rate kept codling moth infestation under 2% on Red Delicious only in 1987.

Material
Red Deliciouse0
Treatment
Azinphos-methyle0
Interactor
codling mothCydia pomonellae0pest
Outcome
codling moth infestatione0
Direction
reducede0
Value
<2 %e0
Qualifier
only in 1987e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cydia pomonella
Cydia pomonella · InteractorSimon Winkley & Ken Walker, Museum Victoria · CC BY 3.0 au · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Azinphos-methyl applied at the recommended rate of 2.7 kg and 25% of the recommended rate reduced codling moth infestation to commercially acceptable levels of <2 % on Red Delicious only in 1987.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 583–778 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–81 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Low pesticide rates could save costs.

Treatment
low rates of pesticidese0
Outcome
cost savingse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Considerable cost savings are possible by using low rates of pesticides.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 779–851 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–81 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Low pesticide rates are suggested for lower valued cultivars and low pest pressure orchards.

Material
Jonathanse0
Outcome
use of low ratese0
Qualifier
orchards with low levels of pest and diseasee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Our results suggest that the use of low rates is more applicable to low valued cultivars such as Jonathans and orchards with low levels of pest and disease.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 852–1008 · show in text ↑
t0

“apples”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–81 · show in text ↑

mancozeb · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

penconazole · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 8 positive, 1 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

azinphos-methyl · Cydia pomonella · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

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.