Paper · 1999 · Journal of Entomological Science

Slugs in Conservation Tillage Corn and Soybeans in the Eastern Corn Belt

Ronald B. Hammond; Terry Beck; Judith A. Smith; et al.

11
claims
12
verbatim quotes
25
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Slug problems have increased in frequency as conservation tillage has become a more widely adapted practice for production of corn, Zea mays (L.), and soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merrill, in the Midwest. Because of the increasing concern about slug damage to these crops, we initiated studies to aid growers in management of this serious pest. Slug populations were sampled in conservation-tillage fields in seven counties in Ohio from 1994–1996 to determine the species that were present in field crops and to gain insights into their life histories and damage potential. Four slug species were collected in numbers sufficient to be considered of potential economic importance. The predominant species in population size and geographic range were Deroceras reticulatum (Müller), followed closely by D. leave (Müller). Both species were common in most fields. The third most numerous slug species was Arion subfuscus (Drapamaud). Although this species was found in fewer fields, it was often collected in very large numbers. The fourth slug. A. fasciatus (Nilsson), was found only in two counties. We observed juvenile D. reticulatum causing the most damage by their feeding in late-May and in June. Damage caused by the other species was not as evident, with the possible exception of A. subfuscus causing stand loss in soybeans.

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Four slug species were collected in economically potentially important numbers.

Taxon
sluge0
Outcome
species were collectede0
Value
Foure0
Qualifier
potential economic importancee0

Verbatim

e0

“Four slug species were collected in numbers sufficient to be considered of potential economic importance.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 571–676 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Deroceras reticulatum predominated in population size and geographic range.

Taxon
Deroceras reticulatumDeroceras reticulatume0
Outcome
population size and geographic rangee0
Direction
predominante0

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

Deroceras reticulatum
Deroceras reticulatum · TaxonBruce Marlin · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The predominant species in population size and geographic range were Deroceras reticulatum (Müller), followed closely by D. leave (Müller).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–816 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

D. leave followed closely behind the predominant slug species.

Taxon
D. leavee0
Outcome
population size and geographic rangee0
Qualifier
followed closelye0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The predominant species in population size and geographic range were Deroceras reticulatum (Müller), followed closely by D. leave (Müller).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–816 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Deroceras reticulatum was common in most fields.

Taxon
Deroceras reticulatumDeroceras reticulatume0
Outcome
common in most fieldse0

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

Deroceras reticulatum
Deroceras reticulatum · TaxonBruce Marlin · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Deroceras reticulatum (Müller), followed closely by D. leave (Müller). Both species were common in most fields.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–857 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Arion subfuscus was the third most numerous slug species.

Taxon
Arion subfuscusArion subfuscuse0
Outcome
third most numerous slug speciese0

Not reportedDirection

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

Arion subfuscus
Arion subfuscus · TaxonMichal Maňas · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The third most numerous slug species was Arion subfuscus (Drapamaud).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–927 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Arion subfuscus occurred in fewer fields but often in very large numbers.

Taxon
Arion subfuscusArion subfuscuse0
Outcome
found in fewer fieldse0
Direction
fewere0
Qualifier
often collected in very large numberse0

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

Arion subfuscus
Arion subfuscus · TaxonMichal Maňas · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The third most numerous slug species was Arion subfuscus (Drapamaud). Although this species was found in fewer fields, it was often collected in very large numbers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 858–1022 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A. fasciatus occurred only in two counties.

Taxon
A. fasciatusArion fasciatuse0
Outcome
found only in two countiese0

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

Arion fasciatus
Arion fasciatus · TaxonMagne Flåten · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The fourth slug. A. fasciatus (Nilsson), was found only in two counties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1023–1095 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Juvenile D. reticulatum caused the most feeding damage in late May and June.

Taxon
D. reticulatumDeroceras reticulatume0
Organ / stage
juvenilee0
Outcome
damagee0
Direction
moste0
Qualifier
in late-May and in Junee0

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

Deroceras reticulatum
Deroceras reticulatum · TaxonBruce Marlin · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“We observed juvenile D. reticulatum causing the most damage by their feeding in late-May and in June.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1096–1197 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Damage from other slug species was less evident.

Taxon
Slugst0
Outcome
Damagee0
Direction
not as evidente0

Verbatim

e0

“Damage caused by the other species was not as evident, with the possible exception of A. subfuscus causing stand loss in soybeans.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1198–1328 · show in text ↑
t0

“Slugs”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–5 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

A. subfuscus possibly caused soybean stand loss.

Taxon
soybeansGlycine maxe0
Interactor
A. subfuscusArion subfuscuse0pest
Outcome
stand losse0
Qualifier
possible exceptione0

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

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Arion subfuscus
Arion subfuscus · InteractorMichal Maňas · CC BY 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with the possible exception of A. subfuscus causing stand loss in soybeans.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1253–1328 · show in text ↑