Abstract
In 2019 to 2021, effects of different weed control strategies in sugar beet on pests and beneficial insects were examined at seven locations in Lower Saxony. The different strategies included conventional spraying, band spraying in the row together with mechanical hoeing between the rows and mechanical hoeing between the rows along with hand hoeing in the row. The various beneficial and pest insects were caught using different trapping methods. For the majority of arthropod populations, either no differences or hardly any significant differences were reported between the three different weed control strategies. Significant effects could only be found on single dates, but these were also not directed in the same direction. According to the results from the photoeclector catches and visual assessments, hoeing three times and chemical weed control had comparable effects to the on the arthropod populations evaluated in this study.
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 3
Claim · model-written summary
Most arthropod populations differed little or not significantly among three control strategies.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0 - Treatment
- three different weed control strategiese0
- Outcome
- arthropod populationse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the majority of arthropod populations, either no differences or hardly any significant differences were reported between the three different weed control strategies”
t0“Comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control in sugar beet – Impact on pest insects and epigaeic predatory arthropods”
Claim · model-written summary
Significant effects occurred only on individual dates and had inconsistent direction.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- weed controlt0
- Outcome
- Significant effectse0
- Qualifier
- single datese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant effects could only be found on single dates, but these were also not directed in the same direction”
t0“Comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control in sugar beet – Impact on pest insects and epigaeic predatory arthropods”
Claim · model-written summary
Three rounds of hoeing and chemical control had comparable arthropod effects.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- hoeing three timese0
- Outcome
- arthropod populationse0
- Comparator
- chemical weed controle0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“hoeing three times and chemical weed control had comparable effects to the on the arthropod populations evaluated in this study”
t0“Comparison of mechanical and chemical weed control in sugar beet – Impact on pest insects and epigaeic predatory arthropods”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · pest · Beta vulgaris (beet)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- 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.