Abstract
MITE AND SPIDER MITES, 1998: Alert alone at one rate was compared with combinations of different copper formulations and/or petroleum oil to determine comparative residual control of both citrus rust mite and spider mites on Florida citrus.Treatments were assigned to 5 x 5 (= 25 tree) plots in a RCB design, replicated four times on 9 to 13 ft tall trees with 25 x 12.5 ft spacing in the Lake Alfred vicinity, Polk Co., FL.Treatments were applied on 16, 17, and 18 Jun (250 gpa) using an FMC 352-S pto airblast sprayer with speed, nozzles and pressure (160 psi) adjusted to apply the designated gpa.Copper formulations evaluated included: Copper hydroxide DF, 40% metallic copper (Griffin Corp.), Basic copper 53, 53% metallic copper (Micro-Flo), and Champ copper 2 F, 24.4% metallic copper (Agtrol Chemical Products).At each evaluation date, 20 fruit were randomly selected and examined on the center tree within each replicate using a 10X handlens.All live motile CRM (except eggs) were counted in two, 1-cm 2 lensfields on partially shaded sides of each fruit.The two counts per fruit were combined and recorded as one observation.Data were subjected to log 10 (X + 1) transformations for statistical analysis and untransformed means were presented for comparison.Cumulative mite-days and damage rating comparisons were subjected to log 10 (X + 1) transformations for statistical analysis and untransformed means were presented for comparison.Twenty leaves from the hardened spring flush were picked at random around the canopy perimeter of the center tree within each replicate at designated intervals before and after spraying.Each 20 leaf sample was collected in a labeled paper bag, placed in a cooler and returned to the laboratory.A stereomicroscope was used to examine both the upper and lower leaf surfaces.Live motile spider mites were counted on both sides and recorded as one observation.Alert alone or in combination with petroleum oil, or with Champ copper, or with Basic copper 53, or with copper hydroxide DF + petroleum oil provided comparable residual control of CRM for 69 DAT.Alert + copper DF provided significantly less residual efficacy of CRM between 6 Aug and 21 Aug (51 to 66 DAT) compared with Alert alone.However, cumulative mite-days were not significantly different between sprayed treatments.Slight differences in percentages of russeted fruit surface were obtained between Alert only, Alert + copper hydroxide + petroleum oil, and Alert + Champ copper compared with the untreated check or Alert + copper hydroxide or Alert + petroleum oil.Mixed spider mite populations were present in this grove during the experiment with crm never exceeding 0.1 mites/leaf.The remainder were TCM.Slight differences in spider mite densities occurred between Alert alone and the untreated check between 28 Jul and 6 Aug (42 to 51 DAT).Spider mite densities were significantly greater than the untreated check trees in Alert + copper hydroxide DF or Alert + Champ copper between 42 to 51 DAT.Alert + Basic copper 53 had significantly higher mite densities on 28 Jul (42 DAT) and 3 Aug (48 DAT) only.The addition of petroleum oil to the Alert + copper treatments or Alert alone resulted in significantly lower spider mite densities compared with the untreated check trees.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Alert alone and five specified mixtures gave comparable citrus rust mite control for 69 days.
- Treatment
- Alert alonee0
- Interactor
- CRMe0pest
- Outcome
- residual control of CRMe0
- Direction
- comparablee0
- Value
- 69 DATe0
- Comparator
- with petroleum oile0
CitrusOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Alert alone or in combination with petroleum oil, or with Champ copper, or with Basic copper 53, or with copper hydroxide DF + petroleum oil provided comparable residual control of CRM for 69 DAT.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Alert plus copper DF had less residual efficacy against citrus rust mites than Alert alone at 51 to 66 DAT.
- Treatment
- Alert + copper DFe0
- Interactor
- CRMe0pest
- Outcome
- residual efficacy of CRMe0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- between 6 Aug and 21 Aug (51 to 66 DAT)e0
- Comparator
- Alert alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Alert + copper DF provided significantly less residual efficacy of CRM between 6 Aug and 21 Aug (51 to 66 DAT) compared with Alert alone.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative mite days did not differ significantly among sprayed treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cumulative mite-days were not significantly different between sprayed treatments”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Russeted fruit surface percentages differed slightly among Alert mixtures and checks.
- Outcome
- percentages of russeted fruit surfacee0
- Direction
- Slight differencese0
- Comparator
- the untreated checke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Slight differences in percentages of russeted fruit surface were obtained between Alert only, Alert + copper hydroxide + petroleum oil, and Alert + Champ copper compared with the untreated check or Alert + copper hydroxide or Alert + petroleum oil.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
The reported mite count did not exceed 0.1 mites per leaf.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“crm never exceeding 0.1 mites/leaf”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Alert alone and untreated trees had slight differences in spider mite densities at 42 to 51 DAT.
- Treatment
- Alert alonee0
- Interactor
- spider mitee0pest
- Outcome
- spider mite densitiese0
- Direction
- Slight differencese0
- Qualifier
- between 28 Jul and 6 Aug (42 to 51 DAT)e0
- Comparator
- the untreated checke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Slight differences in spider mite densities occurred between Alert alone and the untreated check between 28 Jul and 6 Aug (42 to 51 DAT).”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Alert plus copper hydroxide DF increased spider mite density relative to untreated trees at 42 to 51 DAT.
- Treatment
- Alert + copper hydroxide DFe0
- Interactor
- Spider mitee0pest
- Outcome
- Spider mite densitiese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- between 42 to 51 DATe0
- Comparator
- the untreated check treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spider mite densities were significantly greater than the untreated check trees in Alert + copper hydroxide DF or Alert + Champ copper between 42 to 51 DAT.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Alert plus Champ copper increased spider mite density relative to untreated trees at 42 to 51 DAT.
- Treatment
- Alert + Champ coppere0
- Interactor
- Spider mitee0pest
- Outcome
- Spider mite densitiese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- between 42 to 51 DATe0
- Comparator
- the untreated check treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Spider mite densities were significantly greater than the untreated check trees in Alert + copper hydroxide DF or Alert + Champ copper between 42 to 51 DAT.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Alert plus Basic copper 53 increased mite densities on 28 July and 3 August.
- Treatment
- Alert + Basic copper 53e0
- Interactor
- mitee0pest
- Outcome
- mite densitiese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- on 28 Jul (42 DAT) and 3 Aug (48 DAT) onlye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Alert + Basic copper 53 had significantly higher mite densities on 28 Jul (42 DAT) and 3 Aug (48 DAT) only.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding petroleum oil to Alert plus copper lowered spider mite densities relative to untreated trees.
- Treatment
- The addition of petroleum oil to the Alert + copper treatmentse0
- Interactor
- spider mitee0pest
- Outcome
- spider mite densitiese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- the untreated check treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of petroleum oil to the Alert + copper treatments or Alert alone resulted in significantly lower spider mite densities compared with the untreated check trees.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Adding petroleum oil to Alert alone lowered spider mite densities relative to untreated trees.
- Treatment
- petroleum oile0
- Interactor
- spider mitee0pest
- Outcome
- spider mite densitiese0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- the untreated check treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The addition of petroleum oil to the Alert + copper treatments or Alert alone resulted in significantly lower spider mite densities compared with the untreated check trees.”
t0“CITRUS”
The same questions in other papers
copper atom · pest · CitrusPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
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.