Paper · 1995 · Indian journal of plant protection

Integrated Management of Cotton Pests with Emphasis on Bollworms

Brajesh Mishra; Sayan Mandal

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Field trials conducted during kharif seasons of 1991, 1992 and 1993 indicated that pest control of the sucking pests and bollworms could be achieved with insecticidal schedule (spraying methyldemeton and monocrotophos three times each) which recorded 4.60% boll infestation and 19.73 q/ha seed control yield. When the predator, Chiysoperla cornea Steph. was employed in the schedule it reduced the sucking pest populations considerably. The release of predator (C. cornea) followed by spraying of monocrotophos three times recorded boll infestation (5.84%) and yield (17.80 q/ha) which was at par with insecticidal schedule. The combination of predator, egg parasitiod Trichogramma achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkatti, and pathogen (NPV of Heliothis) also recorded significantly reduced bollworm infestation (8.31%) and increased yield (16.00 q/.ha). All schedules recorded signficantly reduced bollworm population and increased yield over control (no spraying).

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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The insecticidal schedule recorded 4.60% boll infestation.

Treatment
spraying methyldemeton and monocrotophos three times eache0
Interactor
BollwormsHelicoverpa zeat0pest
Outcome
boll infestatione0
Value
4.60%e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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 ↗
Helicoverpa zea
Helicoverpa zea · InteractorAndy Reago & Chrissy McClarren · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“insecticidal schedule (spraying methyldemeton and monocrotophos three times each) which recorded 4.60% boll infestation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 154–273 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Pests with Emphasis on Bollworms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The insecticidal schedule recorded cotton seed yield of 19.73 q/ha.

Treatment
spraying methyldemeton and monocrotophos three times eache0
Outcome
seed control yielde0
Value
19.73 q/hae0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

“insecticidal schedule (spraying methyldemeton and monocrotophos three times each) which recorded 4.60% boll infestation and 19.73 q/ha seed control yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 154–307 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Adding the predator reduced sucking pest populations.

Treatment
Chiysoperla cornea Steph.e0
Interactor
sucking peste0pest
Second interactor
Chiysoperla cornea Steph.e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
sucking pest populationse0
Direction
reducede0

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

“When the predator, Chiysoperla cornea Steph. was employed in the schedule it reduced the sucking pest populations considerably”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 309–435 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Pests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–37 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predator release followed by monocrotophos recorded 5.84% boll infestation.

Treatment
release of predator (C. cornea) followed by spraying of monocrotophos three timese0
Interactor
BollwormsHelicoverpa zeat0pest
Second interactor
C. corneae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
boll infestatione0
Value
5.84%e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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 ↗
Helicoverpa zea
Helicoverpa zea · InteractorAndy Reago & Chrissy McClarren · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The release of predator (C. cornea) followed by spraying of monocrotophos three times recorded boll infestation (5.84%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 437–556 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton Pests with Emphasis on Bollworms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–64 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Predator release followed by monocrotophos recorded yield of 17.80 q/ha.

Treatment
release of predator (C. cornea) followed by spraying of monocrotophos three timese0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
at pare0
Value
17.80 q/hae0
Comparator
insecticidal schedulee0

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 release of predator (C. cornea) followed by spraying of monocrotophos three times recorded boll infestation (5.84%) and yield (17.80 q/ha) which was at par with insecticidal schedule”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 437–623 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The predator, parasitoid, and pathogen combination significantly reduced bollworm infestation to 8.31%.

Treatment
combination of predator, egg parasitiod Trichogramma achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkatti, and pathogen (NPV of Heliothis)e0
Interactor
bollwormHelicoverpa zeae0pest
Second interactor
Trichogramma achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkattie0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
bollworm infestatione0
Direction
reducede0
Value
8.31%e0
Qualifier
NPV of Heliothise0

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 ↗
Helicoverpa zea
Helicoverpa zea · InteractorAndy Reago & Chrissy McClarren · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combination of predator, egg parasitiod Trichogramma achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkatti, and pathogen (NPV of Heliothis) also recorded significantly reduced bollworm infestation (8.31%)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–811 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The combined biological control schedule significantly increased yield to 16.00 q/.ha.

Treatment
combination of predator, egg parasitiod Trichogramma achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkatti, and pathogen (NPV of Heliothis)e0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Value
16.00 q/.hae0

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

“The combination of predator, egg parasitiod Trichogramma achaeae Nagaraja and Nagarkatti, and pathogen (NPV of Heliothis) also recorded significantly reduced bollworm infestation (8.31%) and increased yield (16.00 q/.ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 625–845 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All schedules significantly reduced bollworm populations versus no spraying.

Treatment
All schedulese0
Interactor
bollwormHelicoverpa zeae0pest
Outcome
bollworm populatione0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
control (no spraying)e0

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 ↗
Helicoverpa zea
Helicoverpa zea · InteractorAndy Reago & Chrissy McClarren · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“All schedules recorded signficantly reduced bollworm population and increased yield over control (no spraying)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–957 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All schedules significantly increased yield versus no spraying.

Treatment
All schedulese0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control (no spraying)e0

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

“All schedules recorded signficantly reduced bollworm population and increased yield over control (no spraying)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 847–957 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–31 · show in text ↑

Heliothis · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

monocrotophos · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

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

monocrotophos · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

monocrotophos · Helicoverpa zea · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

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

biocontrol · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

application · Helicoverpa zea · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 14 positive, 1 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

application · control · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

15 papers: 11 positive, 4 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

11 papers more in this group

See all 15 papers →

application · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

283 papers: 253 positive, 30 negative or no effect

252 papers in the same direction as this paper · 27 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

279 papers more in this group

See all 283 papers →

8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.