Paper · 1999 · HortScience

Intercropping Cabbage and Indian Mustard for Potential Control of Lepidopterous and Other Insects

David A. Bender; William P. Morrison; Raymond E. Frisbie

5
claims
5
verbatim quotes
43
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A system of intercropping cabbage ( Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) with Indian mustard [ Brassica juncea ( L.) Czern.] to reduce pesticide applications was evaluated over three cropping seasons. Insects were monitored in nonintercropped cabbage, cabbage plots surrounded by Indian mustard, and the Indian mustard intercrop. Insecticide applications were made to individual plots based on specific treatment thresholds for lepidopterous insects and accepted pest management practices for other insects. Intercropping had no significant effect on the number of lepidopterous larvae in cabbage. Indian mustard did not appear to preferentially attract lepidopterous insects, but was highly attractive to hemipterans, especially harlequin bugs [ Murgantia histrionica (Hahn)]. In one season with heavy harlequin bug pressure, intercropping with Indian mustard eliminated two insecticide applications to cabbage. Intercropping cabbage with Indian mustard does not appear to be an economical pest management practice under normal pest pressures in West Texas.

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 resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping did not significantly change lepidopterous larval numbers in cabbage.

Treatment
Intercroppinge0
Interactor
lepidopterous larvaee0pest
Outcome
number of lepidopterous larvae in cabbagee0
Direction
no significant effecte0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. capitata
Brassica oleracea var. capitata · TaxonThamizhpparithi Maari · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping had no significant effect on the number of lepidopterous larvae in cabbage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 507–595 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indian mustard did not preferentially attract lepidopterous insects.

Taxon
Indian mustardBrassica junceae0
Interactor
lepidopterous insectse0pest
Outcome
preferentially attract lepidopterous insectse0

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

Brassica juncea
Brassica juncea · TaxonDalgial · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Indian mustard did not appear to preferentially attract lepidopterous insects”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 597–674 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indian mustard was highly attractive to hemipterans, especially harlequin bugs.

Taxon
Indian mustardBrassica junceae0
Interactor
harlequin bugse0pest
Outcome
highly attractive to hemipteranse0

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

Brassica juncea
Brassica juncea · TaxonDalgial · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Indian mustard did not appear to preferentially attract lepidopterous insects, but was highly attractive to hemipterans, especially harlequin bugs [ Murgantia histrionica (Hahn)]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 597–775 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mustard intercropping eliminated two cabbage insecticide applications under heavy harlequin bug pressure.

Treatment
intercropping with Indian mustarde0
Interactor
harlequin buge0pest
Outcome
insecticide applications to cabbagee0
Direction
eliminatede0
Value
two insecticide applicationse0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica oleracea var. capitata
Brassica oleracea var. capitata · TaxonThamizhpparithi Maari · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In one season with heavy harlequin bug pressure, intercropping with Indian mustard eliminated two insecticide applications to cabbage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 777–910 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors judged mustard intercropping uneconomical for pest management under normal pressure in West Texas.

Treatment
Intercropping cabbage with Indian mustarde0
Outcome
does not appear to be an economical pest management practicee0
Qualifier
under normal pest pressurese0
Setting
West Texase0

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

Brassica oleracea var. capitata
Brassica oleracea var. capitata · TaxonThamizhpparithi Maari · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping cabbage with Indian mustard does not appear to be an economical pest management practice under normal pest pressures in West Texas”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 912–1056 · show in text ↑

Brassica juncea · molecular: metabolites · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)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 →

intercropping · molecular: metabolites · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

intercropping · pest · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 15 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 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.