Abstract
Management decisions mitigating thrips injury and tomato spotted wilt infection are primarily limited to being enacted at the beginning of the growing season. Previous work explored corresponding potential management contribution of concurrent insecticide application with a superabsorbent polymer in-furrow but reported effects to be marginal or variable across experiments. To more thoroughly probe this potential, data from a collection of 40 experiments conducted from 2009 through 2022 was analyzed to examine the efficacy of insecticides (aldicarb, imidacloprid, imidacloprid plus fluopyram, and phorate, in addition to a nontreated check) applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production. In addition to treatments applied individually, experiments included imidacloprid (n = 11) or phorate (n = 18) applied in the presence of 2.2 kg/ha superabsorbent polymer. Results indicated that neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer. These results were consistent across variety susceptibility levels to tomato spotted wilt. The fitted models were determined to be robust to the treatment composition of screened studies (P > 0.089). Where there were differences in projected returns above the nontreated check, phorate or aldicarb were the most consistently profitable treatments.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Imidacloprid alone did not significantly change peanut stand count compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- imidaclopride1
- Outcome
- stand counte1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
Imidacloprid alone did not significantly change thrips injury on peanut compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- imidaclopride1
- Outcome
- thrips injurye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
ThripsOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
Imidacloprid alone did not significantly change tomato spotted wilt incidence in peanut compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- imidaclopride1
- Interactor
- tomato spotted wilte1pathogen
- Outcome
- tomato spotted wilt incidencee1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
Imidacloprid alone did not significantly change peanut yield compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- imidaclopride1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate alone did not significantly change peanut stand count compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- phoratee1
- Outcome
- stand counte1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate alone did not significantly change thrips injury on peanut compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- phoratee1
- Outcome
- thrips injurye1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate alone did not significantly change tomato spotted wilt incidence in peanut compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- phoratee1
- Interactor
- tomato spotted wilte1pathogen
- Outcome
- tomato spotted wilt incidencee1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
Phorate alone did not significantly change peanut yield compared with co-application with the polymer.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- phoratee1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- their co-application with the polymere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e1“neither imidacloprid nor phorate alone significantly varied with regard to stand count (P > 0.35), thrips injury (P > 0.27), tomato spotted wilt incidence (P > 0.08), or yield (P > 0.37) when compared to their co-application with the polymer”
Claim · model-written summary
The fitted models were robust to the treatment composition of the screened studies.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- robust to the treatment compositione3
- Value
- P > 0.089e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e3“The fitted models were determined to be robust to the treatment composition of screened studies (P > 0.089)”
Claim · model-written summary
Where differences in projected returns above the nontreated check occurred, phorate or aldicarb were the most consistently profitable treatments.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- phorate or aldicarbe2
- Outcome
- projected returnse2
- Direction
- most consistently profitablee2
- Comparator
- nontreated checke2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e2“Where there were differences in projected returns above the nontreated check, phorate or aldicarb were the most consistently profitable treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Results were consistent across peanut variety susceptibility levels to tomato spotted wilt.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- consistent across variety susceptibility levelse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“applied in-furrow at planting for peanut production”
e4“These results were consistent across variety susceptibility levels to tomato spotted wilt”
The same questions in other papers
phorate · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →imidacloprid · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →aldicarb · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →phorate · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
phorate · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →imidacloprid · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →phorate · Thrips · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →imidacloprid · Thrips · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.