Paper · 2004 · Journal of Economic Entomology

Ultralow Rates of Spinosad in Phagostimulant Granules Provide Control of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Maize

Trevor Williams; Juan Cisneros; Dora I. Penagos; et al.

10
claims
20
verbatim quotes
12
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Field trails in 2002 and 2003 were performed to determine the efficacy of maize flour-based granular formulations with ultralow rates of the naturally derived insecticide spinosad (0.1, 0.3, and 1.0 g [AI]/ha), for control of Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) in maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico. Spinosad formulations were compared with a chemical standard, a commercial granular formulation of chlorpyrifos (150 g [AI]/ha). In both years, application of spinosad resulted in excellent levels of control, indicated by the number of living S. frugiperda larvae recovered from experimental plots. The efficacy of spinosad applied at 0.3 and 1.0 g (AI)/ha was very similar to that of chlorpyrifos. Natural reinfestation caused S. frugiperda numbers in insecticide treated plots to return to values similar to the control treatment by 10–15 d postapplication. Many spinosad-intoxicated larvae collected in the field died later in the laboratory in 2002, but not in 2003. Percentage mortality due to parasitoid emergence did not differ in any treatment in either field trial. The number of parasitoids that emerged from S. frugiperda collected in each treatment was significantly reduced after application of spinosad (all rates) or chlorpyrifos due to a reduction in the number of host larvae. Parasitoid numbers returned to control values by 9–15 d postapplication in all treatments. The most prevalent parasitoid was the braconid Chelonus insularis Cresson, which represented ≈80% of emerging parasitoids in both years. We conclude that appropriate formulation technology can greatly enhance the performance of this naturally derived, biorational insecticide.

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 10

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad granules gave excellent control of Spodoptera frugiperda in maize in both years, judged by living larvae recovered from plots.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
application of spinosade1
Interactor
S. frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperdae1pest
Outcome
number of living S. frugiperda larvaee1
Direction
excellent levels of controle1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“In both years, application of spinosad resulted in excellent levels of control, indicated by the number of living S. frugiperda larvae recovered from experimental plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 442–610 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad at 0.3 and 1.0 g (AI)/ha had efficacy very similar to chlorpyrifos.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
spinosad applied at 0.3 and 1.0 g (AI)/hae1
Outcome
efficacye1
Direction
very similare1
Comparator
chlorpyrifose1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“The efficacy of spinosad applied at 0.3 and 1.0 g (AI)/ha was very similar to that of chlorpyrifos”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 612–710 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Natural reinfestation brought S. frugiperda numbers in insecticide-treated plots back to values similar to the control by 10-15 days after application.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
insecticide treated plotse1
Interactor
S. frugiperdaSpodoptera frugiperdae1pest
Outcome
S. frugiperda numberse1
Direction
return to values similare1
Qualifier
10–15 d postapplicatione1
Comparator
the control treatmente1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Spodoptera frugiperda
Spodoptera frugiperda · InteractorUSGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab from Beltsville, Maryland, USA · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“Natural reinfestation caused S. frugiperda numbers in insecticide treated plots to return to values similar to the control treatment by 10–15 d postapplication”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 712–871 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Many spinosad-intoxicated larvae collected in the field died later in the laboratory in 2002 but not in 2003.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
spinosad-intoxicatede1
Outcome
died later in the laboratorye1
Qualifier
in 2002, but not in 2003e1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

Not reportedDirection

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“Many spinosad-intoxicated larvae collected in the field died later in the laboratory in 2002, but not in 2003”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 873–982 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Percentage mortality due to parasitoid emergence did not differ among treatments in either field trial.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
any treatmente1
Interactor
parasitoide1biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Percentage mortality due to parasitoid emergencee1
Direction
did not differe1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“Percentage mortality due to parasitoid emergence did not differ in any treatment in either field trial”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 984–1086 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The number of parasitoids emerging from S. frugiperda was significantly reduced after spinosad (all rates), owing to fewer host larvae.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
spinosad (all rates)e1
Interactor
parasitoidse1biocontrol_agent
Outcome
number of parasitoids that emerged from S. frugiperdae1
Direction
significantly reducede1
Qualifier
due to a reduction in the number of host larvaee1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“The number of parasitoids that emerged from S. frugiperda collected in each treatment was significantly reduced after application of spinosad (all rates) or chlorpyrifos due to a reduction in the number of host larvae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1305 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The number of parasitoids emerging from S. frugiperda was significantly reduced after chlorpyrifos, owing to fewer host larvae.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
chlorpyrifose1
Interactor
parasitoidse1biocontrol_agent
Outcome
number of parasitoids that emerged from S. frugiperdae1
Direction
significantly reducede1
Qualifier
due to a reduction in the number of host larvaee1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“The number of parasitoids that emerged from S. frugiperda collected in each treatment was significantly reduced after application of spinosad (all rates) or chlorpyrifos due to a reduction in the number of host larvae”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1088–1305 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Parasitoid numbers returned to control values by 9-15 days after application in all treatments.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Treatment
all treatmentse1
Interactor
Parasitoide1biocontrol_agent
Outcome
Parasitoid numberse1
Direction
returned to control valuese1
Qualifier
by 9–15 d postapplicatione1
Comparator
control valuese1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“Parasitoid numbers returned to control values by 9–15 d postapplication in all treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1307–1396 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The braconid Chelonus insularis was the most prevalent parasitoid, about 80 percent of emerging parasitoids in both years.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Interactor
Chelonus insularis CressonChelonus insularise1biocontrol_agent
Outcome
most prevalent parasitoide1
Value
≈80%e1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

Not reportedDirection

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“The most prevalent parasitoid was the braconid Chelonus insularis Cresson, which represented ≈80% of emerging parasitoids in both years”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1398–1533 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors conclude that appropriate formulation technology can greatly enhance the performance of the naturally derived biorational insecticide spinosad.

Taxon
Zea mays L.Zea mayse0
Outcome
performance of this naturally derived, biorational insecticidee1
Setting
southern Mexicoe0

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize, Zea mays L., in southern Mexico”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 273–311 · show in text ↑
e1

“We conclude that appropriate formulation technology can greatly enhance the performance of this naturally derived, biorational insecticide”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1535–1673 · show in text ↑

chlorpyrifos · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

spinosad · control · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

spinosad · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Results agree

26 papers: 26 positive, 0 negative or no effect

25 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

insecticide · Spodoptera frugiperda · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

37 papers: 30 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 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.