Abstract
Abstract The value of damage thresholds in determining the need for insecticide sprays against Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) on cotton was evaluated in 1984 and 1985 in eastern Tanzania. Spraying at thresholds of 10, 20, 40 and 80% damaged squares was compared against spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprays. In both years, spraying on damage thresholds reduced the number of insecticide applications from six to between one and five without significantly affecting control of H. armigera , seed cotton yield or overall levels of damage to cotton.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Threshold-based spraying reduced applications from six to one to five.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- spraying on damage thresholdse0
- Outcome
- number of insecticide applicationse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- between one and fivee0
- Comparator
- spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprayse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“spraying on damage thresholds reduced the number of insecticide applications from six to between one and five”
e1“spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprays”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Threshold-based spraying did not significantly alter H. armigera control.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- spraying on damage thresholdse1
- Interactor
- H. armigera
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=60)
Helicoverpa armigerae0pest - Outcome
- control of H. armigerae0
- Direction
- without significantly affectinge0
- Comparator
- spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprayse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_gusano_cogollero.png?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“without significantly affecting control of H. armigera”
e1“spraying on damage thresholds reduced the number of insecticide applications from six to between one and five”
e2“spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprays”
t0“cotton”
Claim · model-written summary
Threshold-based spraying did not significantly alter seed cotton yield.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- spraying on damage thresholdse1
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- without significantly affectinge0
- Comparator
- spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprayse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without significantly affecting control of H. armigera , seed cotton yield or overall levels of damage to cotton”
e1“spraying on damage thresholds reduced the number of insecticide applications from six to between one and five”
e2“spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprays”
Claim · model-written summary
Threshold-based spraying did not significantly alter overall cotton damage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- spraying on damage thresholdse1
- Outcome
- overall levels of damage to cottone0
- Direction
- without significantly affectinge0
- Comparator
- spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprayse2
Not reportedInteractor
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without significantly affecting control of H. armigera , seed cotton yield or overall levels of damage to cotton”
e1“spraying on damage thresholds reduced the number of insecticide applications from six to between one and five”
e2“spraying on a recommended prophylactic regime of six fixed-interval sprays”
The same questions in other papers
application · Helicoverpa armigera · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →application · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →application · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
279 papers more in this group
See all 283 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.