Paper · 2016 · International Journal of Plant Animal and Environmental Sciences

Evaluation of Integrated Pest Managementin in Bollgard Cotton

B. Ram Prasad; S. Malathi

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Integrated pest management (IPM) module was evaluated in transgenic Bt cotton during kharif seasons of 2013–14 and 2014–15 at Regional Agricultural Research Station, Warangal, Telangana state. The IPM module comprising of Jowar as border crop, Castor as trap crop, Greengram as intercrop, installation of pheromone and yellow sticky traps, stem application with Monocrotophos: Water in 1:4 ratio and use of need based insecticides, viz., monocrotophos 36 SL, buprofezin or fipronil 5 SC was compared with farmers’ practice and untreated control in Bt cotton. The results indicated that mean number of aphids, jassids, thrips and whitefly were more in untreated control as compared to IPM and farmers’ practice during 2013 and 2014. Adoption of IPM strategies effectively contained population build up of thrips and maintained higher population of spiders and coccinellids than farmers’ practice. Due to frequent interventions of insecticidal sprays in farmers’ practice, incidence of aphids and jassids was lowest in farmers’ practice than IPM. However, adoption of IPM has resulted in higher B: C ratio than farmers’ practice and control.

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

Untreated Bt cotton had more aphids and jassids than IPM and farmer practice in 2013 and 2014.

Treatment
IPMe0
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae0pest
Outcome
mean number of aphids, jassidse0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
untreated controle0

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 results indicated that mean number of aphids, jassids, thrips and whitefly were more in untreated control as compared to IPM and farmers’ practice during 2013 and 2014.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–731 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Untreated Bt cotton had more thrips and whitefly than IPM and farmer practice.

Treatment
IPMe0
Interactor
thripsThripse0pest
Outcome
thrips and whiteflye0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
untreated controle0

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 ↗
Thrips
Thrips · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Alton N. Sparks, Jr., University of Georgia, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The results indicated that mean number of aphids, jassids, thrips and whitefly were more in untreated control as compared to IPM and farmers’ practice during 2013 and 2014.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 559–731 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM contained thrips population buildup compared with farmer practice.

Treatment
IPM strategiese0
Interactor
thripsThripse0pest
Outcome
population build up of thripse0
Direction
containede0
Comparator
farmers’ practicee0

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 ↗
Thrips
Thrips · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Alton N. Sparks, Jr., University of Georgia, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Adoption of IPM strategies effectively contained population build up of thrips and maintained higher population of spiders and coccinellids than farmers’ practice.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 732–895 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM maintained higher spider and coccinellid populations than farmer practice.

Treatment
IPM strategiese0
Interactor
spidersAraneaee0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
population of spiders and coccinellidse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
farmers’ practicee0

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

“Adoption of IPM strategies effectively contained population build up of thrips and maintained higher population of spiders and coccinellids than farmers’ practice.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 732–895 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aphid and jassid incidence was lowest under farmer practice compared with IPM.

Treatment
frequent interventions of insecticidal sprayse0
Interactor
aphidsAphidomorphae0pest
Outcome
incidence of aphids and jassidse0
Direction
loweste0
Comparator
IPMe0

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

“Due to frequent interventions of insecticidal sprays in farmers’ practice, incidence of aphids and jassids was lowest in farmers’ practice than IPM.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–1044 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM had a higher benefit cost ratio than farmer practice and control.

Treatment
IPMe0
Outcome
B: C ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
farmers’ practice and controle0

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

“adoption of IPM has resulted in higher B: C ratio than farmers’ practice and control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1054–1139 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑

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

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

insecticide · Aphidomorpha · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

ipm · Araneae · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

ipm · Thrips · 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 →

ipm · Aphidomorpha · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.