Abstract
Southern armyworm remains a very destructive pest of tomato crops grown in Florida. This pest can cause severe defoliation and fruit damage resulting in significant yield losses. For this trial at the University of Florida-IFAS Southwest Florida Research and Education Center in Immokalee, greenhouse-raised seedlings were transplanted 12 Sep at 18-inch spacing on three raised beds set on 6-ft centers, each bed was covered with white-faced polyethylene film. Beds were provided with two drip tapes with 8-inch emitter spacing. Plots of 25 plants, each separated by eight buffer plants, were assigned to four replicates and nine treatments in an RCB design in four rows (Table 1). The center bed of each three-bed section was left untreated and served as a uniform source of pests and spray buffer. Actigard 50 WG (Acibenzolar-S-methyl) at 0.33 to 0.5 oz/acre and Regalia (5% extract of Reynoutria sachalinensis) at 1 qt /acre were applied weekly for bacterial spot control. Inspire Super (20.0 oz) and Quadris Opti (1.6 pts) were applied for target spot control. Foliar insecticide treatments directed at SAW were applied using a high clearance sprayer with two vertical booms operating at 180 psi. Each drop boom was fitted with horizontally directed ATR 80 hollow cone nozzles delivering 10 gpa; spray volume was 80 gpa on the first three applications and 100 gpa on the final spray (Table 1). Twelve centrally located plants per plot were visually inspected, and larvae were counted within three categories: small (1st and 2nd instars), medium (3rd and 4th instars), and large (5th and 6th instars). The amount of defoliation was estimated per plant. Defoliation was rated as: 0 = no damage; 1 = <5% damaged, 2 = between 5 and 33% damaged; 3 = between 33 and 67% damaged; and 4 = >67% damaged. Eight plants from each plot were harvested on 26 Nov and 10 Dec. Fruit was graded by size. Total number of fruit in each size category was counted and weighed and culled fruit due to SAW feeding were counted in each plot. Data were subjected to ANOVA with means separated using LSD (P = 0.05). There was high variability in the counts of very small larvae (1st instar) most of which were often counted emerging from recently laid egg masses; as such, only developing larvae (2nd through 6th instar) are reported (Table 2). On 28 Oct and 4 Nov, all treatments significantly reduced the number of developing larvae on each plant when compared to the untreated check. On 12 and 19 Nov, no treatment was statistically different from the untreated check. Defoliation was significantly reduced by all treatments through 19 Nov except on 12 Nov, when defoliation in plots treated with Proclaim with Activator 90 or Dyna-mic and Radiant with Activator 90 did not differ significantly from the untreated check (Table 3). Means in the column followed by same letter are not statistically different (α = 0.05). Means in the column followed by same letter are not statistically different (α = 0.05). All treatments had significantly less SAW-damaged fruit collected from the two harvests when compared to the untreated check. There was no statistical difference among the Proclaim treatments or Besiege. Proclaim Opti application with surfactant Dyne-amic or Activator 90 significantly reduced fruit damage when compared to the Radiant application with Activator (Table 4). All treatments provided a significant increase in the number and weight of marketable tomatoes collected when compared to the untreated check. No phytotoxicity was observed.1 Means in the column followed by same letter are not statistically different (α = 0.05).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
All insecticide treatments reduced developing southern armyworm larvae on 28 October and 4 November versus untreated check.
- Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Outcome
- number of developing larvae on each plante0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- untreated checke0
- Interactor role
- peste0
Not reportedTaxonInteractor
Verbatim
e0“On 28 Oct and 4 Nov, all treatments significantly reduced the number of developing larvae on each plant when compared to the untreated check.”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments did not differ significantly from the untreated check on 12 and 19 November.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“On 12 and 19 Nov, no treatment was statistically different from the untreated check.”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments significantly reduced tomato defoliation through 19 November, apart from specified 12 November exceptions.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation was significantly reduced by all treatments through 19 Nov except on 12 Nov, when defoliation in plots treated with Proclaim with Activator 90 or Dyna-mic and Radiant with Activator 90 did not differ significantly from the untreated check (Table 3).”
Claim · model-written summary
Proclaim with Activator 90 did not significantly reduce tomato defoliation on 12 November.
- Treatment
- Proclaim with Activator 90e0
- Outcome
- defoliatione0
- Qualifier
- 12 Nove0
- Comparator
- untreated checke0
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation was significantly reduced by all treatments through 19 Nov except on 12 Nov, when defoliation in plots treated with Proclaim with Activator 90 or Dyna-mic and Radiant with Activator 90 did not differ significantly from the untreated check (Table 3).”
Claim · model-written summary
Dyna-mic did not significantly reduce tomato defoliation on 12 November.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation was significantly reduced by all treatments through 19 Nov except on 12 Nov, when defoliation in plots treated with Proclaim with Activator 90 or Dyna-mic and Radiant with Activator 90 did not differ significantly from the untreated check (Table 3).”
Claim · model-written summary
Radiant with Activator 90 did not significantly reduce tomato defoliation on 12 November.
- Treatment
- Radiant with Activator 90e0
- Outcome
- defoliatione0
- Qualifier
- 12 Nove0
- Comparator
- untreated checke0
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“Defoliation was significantly reduced by all treatments through 19 Nov except on 12 Nov, when defoliation in plots treated with Proclaim with Activator 90 or Dyna-mic and Radiant with Activator 90 did not differ significantly from the untreated check (Table 3).”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments reduced southern armyworm damaged tomato fruit at two harvests.
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Interactor
- SAWe0pest
- Outcome
- SAW-damaged fruite0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- untreated checke0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“All treatments had significantly less SAW-damaged fruit collected from the two harvests when compared to the untreated check.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit-damage response did not statistically differ among Proclaim treatments and Besiege.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“There was no statistical difference among the Proclaim treatments or Besiege.”
Claim · model-written summary
Proclaim Opti with Dyne-amic reduced tomato fruit damage relative to Radiant with Activator.
- Treatment
- Proclaim Opti applicatione0
- Outcome
- fruit damagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- Dyne-amice0
- Comparator
- Radiant application with Activatore0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Proclaim Opti application with surfactant Dyne-amic or Activator 90 significantly reduced fruit damage when compared to the Radiant application with Activator (Table 4).”
Claim · model-written summary
Proclaim Opti with Activator 90 reduced tomato fruit damage relative to Radiant with Activator.
- Treatment
- Proclaim Opti applicatione0
- Outcome
- fruit damagee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- Activator 90e0
- Comparator
- Radiant application with Activatore0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Proclaim Opti application with surfactant Dyne-amic or Activator 90 significantly reduced fruit damage when compared to the Radiant application with Activator (Table 4).”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments increased the number of marketable tomatoes versus untreated check.
- Taxon
- tomatoes
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- numbere0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- untreated checke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments provided a significant increase in the number and weight of marketable tomatoes collected when compared to the untreated check.”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments increased the weight of marketable tomatoes versus untreated check.
- Taxon
- tomatoesSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- weighte0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- untreated checke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments provided a significant increase in the number and weight of marketable tomatoes collected when compared to the untreated check.”
Claim · model-written summary
No phytotoxicity was observed in the tomato trial.
- Outcome
- No phytotoxicitye0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“No phytotoxicity was observed.”
The same questions in other papers
emamectin benzoate · pest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.