Abstract
Integrated pest management (IPM) strategies for the management of sucking insect pests were disseminated in 36 villages of three districts of Punjab during 2008 to 2010. Adoption of IPM strategies led to reduction in the population of jassid, whitefly and mealybug in IPM villages. Mean population of jassid was 0.62 and 1.60 nymphs per three leaves, whitefly 1.11 and 2.53 adults per three leaves and mealybug 0.53 and 1.03 per 2.5 cm of central shoot in IPM and non-IPM villages, respectively. Mean population of spiders, chrysoperla, coccinellids and predatory bugs was 0.65, 0.13, 0.15 and 0.04 in IPM villages and 0.29, 0.09, 0.06 and 0.00 per plant in non-IPM villages, respectively. IPM strategies resulted in the 47.69 and 50.56 per cent reduction in number of spray and cost of spray in IPM villages over non-IPM villages. The average cost of cultivation was Rs. 21324 ha −1 in IPM villages, as compared to non-IPM villages (Rs. 23774.67 ha −1 ). Average seed cotton yield in IPM villages was 2333 kg ha −1 in comparison to non-IPM villages (1959.67 kg ha −1 ) and average net return in IPM villages was Rs. 57194 ha −1 , which was Rs. 15709 more than non-IPM villages.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
IPM villages had fewer jassids than non-IPM villages, 0.62 versus 1.60 nymphs per three leaves.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- IPMt1
- Interactor
- jasside0pest
- Outcome
- population of jasside0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 0.62 and 1.60 nymphs per three leavese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean population of jassid was 0.62 and 1.60 nymphs per three leaves”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM villages had fewer whiteflies than non-IPM villages, 1.11 versus 2.53 adults per three leaves.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMt1
- Interactor
- whiteflye0pest
- Outcome
- whiteflye0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 1.11 and 2.53 adults per three leavese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“whitefly 1.11 and 2.53 adults per three leaves”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM villages had fewer mealybugs than non-IPM villages, 0.53 versus 1.03 per 2.5 cm of central shoot.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMt1
- Interactor
- mealybuge0pest
- Outcome
- mealybuge0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- 0.53 and 1.03 per 2.5 cm of central shoote0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mealybug 0.53 and 1.03 per 2.5 cm of central shoot”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
Spider abundance was 0.65 in IPM and 0.29 in non-IPM villages.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMe0
- Outcome
- population of spiderse0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Comparator
- non-IPMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean population of spiders, chrysoperla, coccinellids and predatory bugs was 0.65, 0.13, 0.15 and 0.04 in IPM villages and 0.29, 0.09, 0.06 and 0.00 per plant in non-IPM villages, respectively”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
Chrysoperla abundance was 0.13 in IPM and 0.09 in non-IPM villages.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMe0
- Interactor
- chrysoperla
Chrysoperlae0biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- population of spiders, chrysoperlae0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Comparator
- non-IPMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean population of spiders, chrysoperla, coccinellids and predatory bugs was 0.65, 0.13, 0.15 and 0.04 in IPM villages and 0.29, 0.09, 0.06 and 0.00 per plant in non-IPM villages, respectively”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
Coccinellid abundance was 0.15 in IPM and 0.06 in non-IPM villages.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMe0
- Interactor
- coccinellidse0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- coccinellidse0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Comparator
- non-IPMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean population of spiders, chrysoperla, coccinellids and predatory bugs was 0.65, 0.13, 0.15 and 0.04 in IPM villages and 0.29, 0.09, 0.06 and 0.00 per plant in non-IPM villages, respectively”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
Predatory-bug abundance was 0.04 in IPM and 0.00 in non-IPM villages.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMe0
- Interactor
- predatory bugse0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- predatory bugse0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Comparator
- non-IPMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean population of spiders, chrysoperla, coccinellids and predatory bugs was 0.65, 0.13, 0.15 and 0.04 in IPM villages and 0.29, 0.09, 0.06 and 0.00 per plant in non-IPM villages, respectively”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM reduced spray number by 47.69 per cent.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPM strategiese0
- Outcome
- number of spraye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 47.69e0
- Comparator
- non-IPM villagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“IPM strategies resulted in the 47.69 and 50.56 per cent reduction in number of spray and cost of spray in IPM villages over non-IPM villages”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
IPM reduced spray cost by 50.56 per cent.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPM strategiese0
- Outcome
- cost of spraye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 50.56 per cente0
- Comparator
- non-IPM villagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“IPM strategies resulted in the 47.69 and 50.56 per cent reduction in number of spray and cost of spray in IPM villages over non-IPM villages”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivation cost was Rs. 21324 ha −1 in IPM villages versus Rs. 23774.67 ha −1 in non-IPM villages.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMe0
- Outcome
- cost of cultivatione0
- Direction
- lowerinferrede0
- Value
- Rs. 21324 ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- Rs. 23774.67 ha −1e0
- Comparator
- non-IPM villagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average cost of cultivation was Rs. 21324 ha −1 in IPM villages, as compared to non-IPM villages (Rs. 23774.67 ha −1 )”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed cotton yield was 2333 kg ha −1 in IPM villages versus 1959.67 kg ha −1 in non-IPM villages.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- IPMe0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- higherinferrede0
- Value
- 2333 kg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 1959.67 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- non-IPM villagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average seed cotton yield in IPM villages was 2333 kg ha −1 in comparison to non-IPM villages (1959.67 kg ha −1 )”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
Claim · model-written summary
Average net return was Rs. 57194 ha −1 in IPM villages, Rs. 15709 above non-IPM villages.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- IPMe0
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- Rs. 57194 ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- Rs. 15709e0
- Comparator
- non-IPM villagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average net return in IPM villages was Rs. 57194 ha −1 , which was Rs. 15709 more than non-IPM villages”
t0“cotton”
t1“Adoption of IPM strategies”
The same questions in other papers
ipm · Araneae · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
ipm · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
22 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →ipm · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
38 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- 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.