Paper · 2013 · International Journal of Vegetable Science

Relative Toxicity of Fenazaquin Against Two-Spotted Spider Mite on Okra

S. Sangeetha; K. Ramaraju

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
23
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Continuous use of previous generation acaricides in okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] has increased resistance to pesticides and pest resurgence. The project was undertaken to evaluate a new acaricide, fenazaquin 10 EC, for effective control of two-spotted spider mites [Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae)] in pot culture and under field conditions. Fenazaquin was used at 75, 100, 125, or 150 g·ha−1 a.i. and compared with the standard acaricide dicofol 18.5 EC at 250 g·ha−1 a.i. and an untreated control. The adulticide bioassay, ovicidal action to T. urticae and safety of Dwarf honey bees (Apis florea Fabricius), was performed under laboratory conditions. Pot culture and two field trials were conducted to evaluate efficacy. Impact on okra yield and phytotoxicity were determined. The LC50 was 1.440 mg·L−1 and LT50 at 1.50 mg·L−1 was ˜8 hours. Fenazaquin produced more than 70% egg mortality in all doses for T. urticae. Fenazaquin at 125 and 150 g·ha−1 a.i. caused the highest reduction in numbers of mites in pot culture and field experiments. Fruit yields (9.89 Mt·ha−1, 10.59 Mt·ha−1) and cost–benefit ratio (1:3.25, 1:3.48) were higher in fenazaquin-treated plants at 150 g·ha−1 a.i in field experiments. No test doses were phytotoxic and all doses were relatively safe to Dwarf honey bees.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fenazaquin adulticide LC50 was 1.440 mg·L−1.

Outcome
LC50e0
Value
1.440 mg·L−1e0

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The LC50 was 1.440 mg·L−1 and LT50 at 1.50 mg·L−1 was ˜8 hours.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 809–872 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fenazaquin LT50 at 1.50 mg·L−1 was about eight hours.

Outcome
LT50e0
Value
˜8 hourse0
Qualifier
1.50 mg·L−1e0

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The LC50 was 1.440 mg·L−1 and LT50 at 1.50 mg·L−1 was ˜8 hours.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 809–872 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fenazaquin caused over 70% T. urticae egg mortality at every tested dose.

Treatment
Fenazaquine0
Interactor
T. urticaeTetranychus urticaee0pest
Outcome
egg mortalitye0
Direction
more thane0
Value
70%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Tetranychus urticae
Tetranychus urticae · InteractorGilles San Martin from Namur, Belgium · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fenazaquin produced more than 70% egg mortality in all doses for T. urticae.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 873–949 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fenazaquin at 125 g·ha−1 caused the highest mite reduction in pot and field experiments.

Treatment
Fenazaquin at 125e0
Outcome
numbers of mitese0
Direction
highest reductione0
Setting
pot culture and field experimentse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fenazaquin at 125 and 150 g·ha−1 a.i. caused the highest reduction in numbers of mites in pot culture and field experiments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 950–1074 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fenazaquin at 150 g·ha−1 caused the highest mite reduction in pot and field experiments.

Treatment
150 g·ha−1 a.i.e0
Outcome
numbers of mitese0
Direction
highest reductione0
Setting
pot culture and field experimentse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fenazaquin at 125 and 150 g·ha−1 a.i. caused the highest reduction in numbers of mites in pot culture and field experiments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 950–1074 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field fruit yield was higher with 150 g·ha−1 fenazaquin, with yields of 9.89 and 10.59 Mt·ha−1.

Treatment
fenazaquin-treated plants at 150 g·ha−1 a.ie0
Outcome
Fruit yieldse0
Direction
highere0
Value
9.89 Mt·ha−1, 10.59 Mt·ha−1e0
Setting
field experimentse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit yields (9.89 Mt·ha−1, 10.59 Mt·ha−1) and cost–benefit ratio (1:3.25, 1:3.48) were higher in fenazaquin-treated plants at 150 g·ha−1 a.i in field experiments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1238 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field cost–benefit ratio was higher with 150 g·ha−1 fenazaquin, at 1:3.25 and 1:3.48.

Treatment
fenazaquin-treated plants at 150 g·ha−1 a.ie0
Outcome
cost–benefit ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Value
1:3.25, 1:3.48e0
Setting
field experimentse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fruit yields (9.89 Mt·ha−1, 10.59 Mt·ha−1) and cost–benefit ratio (1:3.25, 1:3.48) were higher in fenazaquin-treated plants at 150 g·ha−1 a.i in field experiments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1075–1238 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No fenazaquin test dose was phytotoxic to okra.

Outcome
No test doses were phytotoxice0

Not reportedDirection

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No test doses were phytotoxic and all doses were relatively safe to Dwarf honey bees.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1239–1324 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All fenazaquin doses were relatively safe to Dwarf honey bees.

Interactor
Dwarf honey beesApinaee0pollinator
Outcome
relatively safe to Dwarf honey beese0

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No test doses were phytotoxic and all doses were relatively safe to Dwarf honey bees.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1239–1324 · show in text ↑
e1

“okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 52–93 · show in text ↑

fenazaquin · Tetranychus urticae · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

fenazaquin · pest · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.