Paper · 2016 · HortTechnology

Developing Protocols for Fall Sweet Corn Production in the South-central United States

Brian A. Kahn; Lynn P. Brandenberger

7
claims
11
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Field studies were conducted in Oklahoma from 2010 to 2012 to develop protocols for fall sweet corn ( Zea mays ) production. Variables examined included a transgenic cultivar that expresses the CryIA(b) toxin from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and its nontransgenic near-isoline, seeding rates and planting dates, and various insecticide regimens. We found that, in eastern Oklahoma, a suitable planting window would correspond roughly to the last 2 weeks in July. Within this favorable period and given timely irrigation, it was possible to sow corn to an acceptable stand. A seeding rate ≈1½ times the desired final stand of one plant/ft appeared to be satisfactory. Use of a cultivar (GSS-0966) with genetic resistance to lepidopteran pests was a critical factor for successful production of fall sweet corn. Efforts to produce a crop with a nontransgenic cultivar using insecticides with relatively low mammalian toxicity were unsuccessful. Our experiments support previous recommendations for applying supplemental insecticides to transgenic Bt sweet corn to potentially increase production of “premium” ears by reducing the percentage of ears with severe insect damage (damage >1½ inches from the cob tip). We demonstrated that a spray schedule that rotated two insecticides with intermediate mammalian toxicity (carbaryl and permethrin) was as effective in reducing severe insect damage to ears of ‘GSS-0966’ as a similar schedule that rotated two highly toxic insecticides (esfenvalerate and methomyl).

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 7

Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

A planting window in eastern Oklahoma corresponded roughly to the last two weeks of July.

Outcome
suitable planting windowe0
Value
last 2 weeks in Julye0
Setting
eastern Oklahomae0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in eastern Oklahoma, a suitable planting window would correspond roughly to the last 2 weeks in July.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 375–476 · show in text ↑
e1

“Within this favorable period and given timely irrigation, it was possible to sow corn to an acceptable stand.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–586 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Timely irrigation within the favorable period allowed an acceptable stand.

Treatment
timely irrigatione0
Outcome
acceptable stande0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Within this favorable period and given timely irrigation, it was possible to sow corn to an acceptable stand.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 477–586 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

A seeding rate roughly one and a half times the target stand appeared satisfactory.

Outcome
seeding rate ≈1½ times the desired final stand of one plant/fte0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“A seeding rate ≈1½ times the desired final stand of one plant/ft appeared to be satisfactory.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 587–680 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–40 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Genetically resistant GSS-0966 was critical for successful fall production.

Taxon
sweet corne0
Material
GSS-0966e0
Interactor
lepidopteran pestse0pest
Outcome
successful production of fall sweet corne0

Verbatim

e0

“Use of a cultivar (GSS-0966) with genetic resistance to lepidopteran pests was a critical factor for successful production of fall sweet corn.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 681–823 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A nontransgenic cultivar with low mammalian toxicity insecticides failed to produce a crop.

Material
nontransgenic cultivare0
Treatment
insecticides with relatively low mammalian toxicitye0
Outcome
produce a crope0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Efforts to produce a crop with a nontransgenic cultivar using insecticides with relatively low mammalian toxicity were unsuccessful.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 824–956 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–40 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Supplemental insecticides may increase premium ears by reducing severe insect damage.

Taxon
sweet corne0
Interactor
insecte0pest
Outcome
applying supplemental insecticidese0

Verbatim

e0

“applying supplemental insecticides to transgenic Bt sweet corn to potentially increase production of “premium” ears by reducing the percentage of ears with severe insect damage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1010–1186 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbaryl and permethrin rotation reduced severe ear damage as effectively as esfenvalerate and methomyl rotation.

Material
GSS-0966e0
Treatment
carbaryl and permethrine0
Interactor
insecte0pest
Outcome
severe insect damage to earse0
Direction
as effective in reducinge0
Comparator
esfenvalerate and methomyle0

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

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a spray schedule that rotated two insecticides with intermediate mammalian toxicity (carbaryl and permethrin) was as effective in reducing severe insect damage to ears of ‘GSS-0966’ as a similar schedule that rotated two highly toxic insecticides (esfenvalerate and methomyl).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1246–1522 · show in text ↑
t0

“Sweet Corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 30–40 · show in text ↑

permethrin · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

carbaryl · pest · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.