Paper · 2009 · Journal of Horticulture and Forestry

Bio-efficacy of spinosad against tomato fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hub.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and its natural enemies

Amalendu Ghosh; Monilal Chatterjee; Agaman; et al.

4
claims
4
verbatim quotes
31
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera Hub. is a polyphagous pest attacking cotton, tomato, okra, chilli, cabbage, pigeon pea, gram etc. throughout the world as well as in India. Due to its high fecundity, polyphagous nature, quick adaptation against insecticides, control of this pest with any single potent toxicant for a long time is quiet difficult and rather impossible. So the newer chemicals need to be evaluated for controlling this pest. Field experiment was under taken for two cropping seasons during September - December, 2006 and September - December, 2007 to find out the efficacy of Spinosad 45% SC against tomato fruit borer (H. armigera Hub.) along with Quinalphos 25% EC, Lambda cyhalothrin 5% EC and Cypermethrin 10 EC at ‘Gayespur’ village (Nadia, West-Bengal, India). It was found that Spinosad was effective against H. armigera on tomato at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha than Quinalphos, Lambda cyhalothrin and Cypermethrin. Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha were very safe to three important predators recorded in tomato field that is, Menochilus sexmaculaus., Syrphus corollae and Chrysoperla carnea.Spinosad is one of such new chemicals which is derived from fermentation broth of soil actinomycetes, Saccharopolyspora spinosa, containing a naturally occurring mixture of spinosyn A and spinosyn D. It is safe to nymphs and adults of the natural enemies. Key words: Spinosad, Helicoverpa armigera, tomato, natural enemies.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha was more effective against H. armigera on tomato than three insecticides.

Treatment
Spinosade0
Interactor
H. armigeraHelicoverpa armigerae0pest
Outcome
H. armigerae0
Direction
effectivee0
Value
73 to 84 gm a.i./hae0
Comparator
Quinalphos, Lambda cyhalothrin and Cypermethrine0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Helicoverpa armigera
Helicoverpa armigera · InteractorRaimundo Pastor · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinosad was effective against H. armigera on tomato at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha than Quinalphos, Lambda cyhalothrin and Cypermethrin”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 813–941 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha was very safe to Menochilus sexmaculaus.

Treatment
Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./hae0
Interactor
Menochilus sexmaculaus.e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
very safee0
Setting
tomato fielde0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha were very safe to three important predators recorded in tomato field that is, Menochilus sexmaculaus., Syrphus corollae and Chrysoperla carnea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1117 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha was very safe to Syrphus corollae.

Treatment
Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./hae0
Interactor
Syrphus corollaee0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
very safee0
Setting
tomato fielde0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha were very safe to three important predators recorded in tomato field that is, Menochilus sexmaculaus., Syrphus corollae and Chrysoperla carnea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1117 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha was very safe to Chrysoperla carnea.

Treatment
Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./hae0
Interactor
Chrysoperla carneaChrysoperla carneae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
very safee0
Setting
tomato fielde0

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

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Chrysoperla carnea
Chrysoperla carnea · InteractorDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Spinosad at 73 to 84 gm a.i./ha were very safe to three important predators recorded in tomato field that is, Menochilus sexmaculaus., Syrphus corollae and Chrysoperla carnea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 943–1117 · show in text ↑

spinosad · Helicoverpa armigera · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

14 papers: 14 positive, 0 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 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.