Abstract
Apple growers in Kentucky normally control pests on a preventative schedule involving fifteen or more chemical applications annually. IPM technology designed to provide growers information about the threat of diseases and insects was used in a demonstration plot in a Daviess County orchard and in the U.K. research orchard, Princeton. The IPM systems used in Daviess County resulted in 6 less applications of pesticides than the traditional system, a savings of approximately $130 per acre. When compared to the traditional preventative spray schedule, the IPM treated apples showed no differences in fruit quality and in orchard diseases and insect infestations. The decreased pesticide use has the potential to reduce applicator exposure, residues on fruit, and the environmental impact of these chemicals. The results of this demonstration were shared with and received an enthusiastic response from growers, Extension personnel, students, consumers, and the news media. The project demonstrated the feasibility of using apple IPM by a Kentucky grower, and it provided students an insight into applied biology.
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
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM systems resulted in 6 fewer pesticide applications than the traditional system in the apple orchard.
- Taxon
- APPLE
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- IPM systemse0
- Outcome
- applications of pesticidese0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Value
- 6e0
- Comparator
- traditional systeme0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The IPM systems used in Daviess County resulted in 6 less applications of pesticides than the traditional system”
t0“COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED CROP MANAGEMENT AND A SCHEDULED PREVENTATIVE PEST CONTROL PROGRAM IN A COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARD”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM saved approximately $130 per acre in the apple orchard.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- savingse1
- Value
- $130 per acree1
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“a savings of approximately $130 per acre”
t0“COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED CROP MANAGEMENT AND A SCHEDULED PREVENTATIVE PEST CONTROL PROGRAM IN A COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARD”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM-treated apples showed no differences in fruit quality compared with the traditional preventative spray schedule.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- IPM treated applese2
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye2
- Direction
- no differencese2
- Comparator
- traditional preventative spray schedulee2
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“When compared to the traditional preventative spray schedule, the IPM treated apples showed no differences in fruit quality”
t0“COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED CROP MANAGEMENT AND A SCHEDULED PREVENTATIVE PEST CONTROL PROGRAM IN A COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARD”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM-treated apples showed no differences in orchard diseases and insect infestations compared with the traditional preventative spray schedule.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- IPM treated applese2
- Interactor
- insecte2pest
- Outcome
- orchard diseases and insect infestationse2
- Direction
- no differencese2
- Comparator
- traditional preventative spray schedulee2
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“When compared to the traditional preventative spray schedule, the IPM treated apples showed no differences in fruit quality and in orchard diseases and insect infestations”
t0“COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED CROP MANAGEMENT AND A SCHEDULED PREVENTATIVE PEST CONTROL PROGRAM IN A COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARD”
Claim · model-written summary
The project demonstrated the feasibility of apple IPM by a Kentucky grower.
- Taxon
- APPLEMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- feasibility of using apple IPMe3
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“The project demonstrated the feasibility of using apple IPM by a Kentucky grower”
t0“COMPARISON OF INTEGRATED CROP MANAGEMENT AND A SCHEDULED PREVENTATIVE PEST CONTROL PROGRAM IN A COMMERCIAL APPLE ORCHARD”
The same questions in other papers
ipm · quality: grain · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
ipm · molecular: metabolites · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- 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.