Abstract
Abstract Field studies were conducted in southern Hungary over two field seasons to assess potential non‐target effects of entomopathogenic nematodes ( Heterorhabditis bacteriophora ) , entomopathogenic fungi ( Metarhizium anisopliae ), clothianidin‐coated seeds and tefluthrin granules applied into the soil against larvae of the chrysomelid Diabrotica virgifera virgifera, one of the major North American and European maize pests. From field gauze cages set up over groups of maize plants, 1944 specimens of non‐target ground‐dwelling or emerging arthropods from 22 taxa were collected. The most abundant taxa belonged to the Diptera, Araneae and Hemiptera. Multivariate statistics revealed significant effects of soil conditions, year and treatments on non‐target species composition. Soil parameters explained 10.5% of the overall variability in species composition. The application of biological control agents or insecticides for the control of Diabrotica larvae, together only slightly but significantly influenced non‐target species composition, explaining 5.6% of the data variability. When pairwise comparisons were conducted, no significant effects on non‐target compositions were detected for the entomopathogenic nematode, the entomopathogenic fungus, tefluthrin or clothianidin. However, clothianidin treatments tended to reduce densities of the beneficial arthropod taxa Coccinellidae, Hymenoptera, Araneae, and particularly Staphylinidae and Chrysopidae, whilst tefluthrin tended to reduce the Coleopteran families. No such trends were apparent for the two biological control agent treatments. Reasons for the small treatment effects on non‐targets may be the generally poor arthropod diversity in soils of intensive field crops such as maize, as well as the application of all agents into relatively narrow soil areas close to maize plants.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Ground-dwelling and emerging arthropods comprised 1944 specimens from 22 taxa in maize cages.
- Outcome
- non‐target ground‐dwelling or emerging arthropodse0
- Value
- 1944 specimense0
- Setting
- field gauze cagese0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“From field gauze cages set up over groups of maize plants, 1944 specimens of non‐target ground‐dwelling or emerging arthropods from 22 taxa were collected.”
Claim · model-written summary
Diptera, Araneae and Hemiptera were the most abundant taxa.
- Outcome
- most abundant taxae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most abundant taxa belonged to the Diptera, Araneae and Hemiptera.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil conditions, year and treatments significantly affected non-target species composition.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Multivariate statistics revealed significant effects of soil conditions, year and treatments on non‐target species composition.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil parameters explained 10.5% of species-composition variability.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil parameters explained 10.5% of the overall variability in species composition.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined control agents slightly but significantly affected non-target composition, explaining 5.6% of variability.
- Treatment
- biological control agents or insecticidese0
- Interactor
- Diabrotica
Diabroticae0pest - Outcome
- non‐target species compositione0
- Value
- 5.6%e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The application of biological control agents or insecticides for the control of Diabrotica larvae, together only slightly but significantly influenced non‐target species composition, explaining 5.6% of the data variability.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Pairwise comparisons found no significant compositional effect of the nematode treatment.
- Treatment
- entomopathogenic nematodee0
- Outcome
- non‐target compositionse0
- Direction
- no significant effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant effects on non‐target compositions were detected for the entomopathogenic nematode, the entomopathogenic fungus, tefluthrin or clothianidin.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Pairwise comparisons found no significant compositional effect of the fungal treatment.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant effects on non‐target compositions were detected for the entomopathogenic nematode, the entomopathogenic fungus, tefluthrin or clothianidin.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Pairwise comparisons found no significant compositional effect of tefluthrin.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant effects on non‐target compositions were detected for the entomopathogenic nematode, the entomopathogenic fungus, tefluthrin or clothianidin.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Pairwise comparisons found no significant compositional effect of clothianidin.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant effects on non‐target compositions were detected for the entomopathogenic nematode, the entomopathogenic fungus, tefluthrin or clothianidin.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Clothianidin tended to reduce beneficial arthropod densities.
- Treatment
- clothianidin treatmentse0
- Outcome
- densities of the beneficial arthropod taxa Coccinellidae, Hymenoptera, Araneae, and particularly Staphylinidae and Chrysopidaee0
- Direction
- reducee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“clothianidin treatments tended to reduce densities of the beneficial arthropod taxa Coccinellidae, Hymenoptera, Araneae, and particularly Staphylinidae and Chrysopidae”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Tefluthrin tended to reduce Coleopteran families.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“tefluthrin tended to reduce the Coleopteran families.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The two biological control treatments showed no corresponding reduction trends.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No such trends were apparent for the two biological control agent treatments.”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
clothianidin · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- 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.