Paper · 2005 · International Journal of Pest Management

Impacts of transgenic Bt cotton and integrated pest management education on smallholder cotton farmers

Puyun Yang; Kunwen Li; Shangbai Shi; et al.

8
claims
13
verbatim quotes
38
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Comparative field research on transgenic Bt cotton and conventional cotton under different conditions (fields without pesticide inputs, fields managed by farmers with IPM education, fields managed by farmers lacking IPM education) were carried out in Hubei province of China in 2002. The amount of pesticide used on Bt cotton by non-IPM farmers was found to be around three times that used by IPM farmers. IPM farmers made significantly higher net profits from cultivating transgenic Bt cotton in comparison with non-IPM farmers. Other pest management practices had more significant influences on the population dynamics of predatory natural enemies and major insect pests than did the adoption of transgenic Bt cotton in the cotton ecosystem. Our study showed that IPM education, by increasing farmer capacity to critically evaluate inputs and their effects, monitor their fields and make informed decisions on pest management, enabled farmers to reduce pesticide use significantly, so resulting in improved production and profit margin. IPM farmer education thus, contributed to maximising the value of planting transgenic Bt cotton.

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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Non-IPM farmers used around three times as much pesticide on Bt cotton as IPM farmers.

Outcome
amount of pesticide usede0
Direction
three timese0
Value
around three timese0
Comparator
IPM farmerse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The amount of pesticide used on Bt cotton by non-IPM farmers was found to be around three times that used by IPM farmers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 293–413 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM farmers earned significantly higher net profits from transgenic Bt cotton than non-IPM farmers.

Outcome
net profitse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
non-IPM farmerse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“IPM farmers made significantly higher net profits from cultivating transgenic Bt cotton in comparison with non-IPM farmers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 415–537 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Other pest management practices influenced predatory natural enemy populations more significantly than Bt cotton adoption.

Treatment
Other pest management practicese0
Interactor
predatory natural enemiese0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
population dynamics of predatory natural enemiese0
Comparator
adoption of transgenic Bt cottone0

Not reportedDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Other pest management practices had more significant influences on the population dynamics of predatory natural enemies and major insect pests than did the adoption of transgenic Bt cotton in the cotton ecosystem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–751 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Other pest management practices influenced major insect pest populations more significantly than Bt cotton adoption.

Treatment
Other pest management practicese0
Interactor
major insect pestse0pest
Outcome
population dynamics of predatory natural enemies and major insect pestse0
Comparator
adoption of transgenic Bt cottone0

Not reportedDirection

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Other pest management practices had more significant influences on the population dynamics of predatory natural enemies and major insect pests than did the adoption of transgenic Bt cotton in the cotton ecosystem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 539–751 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM education enabled significantly lower pesticide use.

Treatment
IPM educatione0
Outcome
pesticide usee0
Direction
reducee0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“IPM education, by increasing farmer capacity to critically evaluate inputs and their effects, monitor their fields and make informed decisions on pest management, enabled farmers to reduce pesticide use significantly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–991 · show in text ↑
e1

“Bt cotton and conventional cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 50–83 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM education resulted in improved production.

Treatment
IPM educatione1
Outcome
productione0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“resulting in improved production and profit margin”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 996–1046 · show in text ↑
e1

“IPM education, by increasing farmer capacity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–819 · show in text ↑
e2

“cultivating transgenic Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–502 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM education resulted in improved profit margin.

Treatment
IPM educatione1
Outcome
profit margine0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“resulting in improved production and profit margin”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 996–1046 · show in text ↑
e1

“IPM education, by increasing farmer capacity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 775–819 · show in text ↑
e2

“cultivating transgenic Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 470–502 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

IPM farmer education maximized the value of planting transgenic Bt cotton.

Outcome
maximising the value of planting transgenic Bt cottone0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“IPM farmer education thus, contributed to maximising the value of planting transgenic Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1048–1143 · show in text ↑

ipm · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

ipm · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

39 papers: 39 positive, 0 negative or no effect

38 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 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.