Paper · 2012 · Annals of Plant Protection Sciences

Comparative Evaluation of Ipm Module and Eco-Friendly Strategies In Bt-Cotton

Suneet Pandher; Satnam Singh

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Results revealed that IPM modules proved comparatively economical against cotton pests than the practices followed by farmers. These eco-friendly modules were also promoted the activity of natural enemies in cotton ecosystem besides restricting the pest population below ETL and reducing the number of pesticide applications. Present study indicated that IPM will definitely had an edge over non-IPM practices under different pest population numbers. Therefore, farmers should be made aware of its benefits and motivated to critically analyze and then, make decisions regarding pest management practices.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM modules were more economical against cotton pests than farmer practices.

Treatment
IPM modulese0
Interactor
cotton pestse0pest
Outcome
economical against cotton pestse0
Direction
comparatively economicale0
Comparator
practices followed by 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 modules proved comparatively economical against cotton pests than the practices followed by farmers.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 22–126 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Eco-friendly modules promoted natural enemies in cotton.

Treatment
eco-friendly modulese0
Interactor
natural enemiese0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
activity of natural enemiese0
Direction
promotede0

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

“These eco-friendly modules were also promoted the activity of natural enemies in cotton ecosystem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 127–224 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Eco-friendly modules kept pest populations below ETL.

Treatment
eco-friendly modulese1
Outcome
pest populatione0
Direction
restrictinge0
Qualifier
below ETLe0

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

“restricting the pest population below ETL”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 233–274 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bt-Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–77 · show in text ↑
e1

“These eco-friendly modules were also promoted the activity of natural enemies in cotton ecosystem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 127–224 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Eco-friendly modules reduced pesticide applications.

Treatment
eco-friendly modulese1
Outcome
number of pesticide applicationse0
Direction
reducinge0

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

“reducing the number of pesticide applications”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 279–324 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bt-Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–77 · show in text ↑
e1

“These eco-friendly modules were also promoted the activity of natural enemies in cotton ecosystem”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 127–224 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM was judged to have an edge over non-IPM practices across pest populations.

Outcome
edge over non-IPM practicese0
Direction
edgee0
Qualifier
under different pest population numberse0

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 will definitely had an edge over non-IPM practices under different pest population numbers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 355–449 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bt-Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–77 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Farmers should be informed and encouraged to assess pest management practices.

Outcome
made aware of its benefits and motivated to critically analyze and then, make decisions regarding pest management practicese0

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

“farmers should be made aware of its benefits and motivated to critically analyze and then, make decisions regarding pest management practices”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 462–603 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bt-Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–77 · show in text ↑

ipm · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

23 papers: 23 positive, 0 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

19 papers more in this group

See all 23 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.