Paper · 2014 · I Control Pollution

FIELD EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT INSECTICIDES AGAINST SPOTTED PODBORER, MARUCA VITRATA (GEYER) INFESTING GREENGRAM

P. S. Umbarkar; G. J. Parsana

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different insecticides against Maruca vitrata (Geyer) infesting greengram at Junagadh Agricultural University campus, Junagadh during kharif 2008. The results revealed that spinosad 0.009 per cent, indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent, profenophos 0.05 per cent and cypermethrin 0.009 per cent were found to be most effective in reducing the M. vitrata population. The highest yield was recorded in the treatment indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent (1516 kg/ha) with minimum pod damage of 9.58 per cent, followed by spinosad 0.009 per cent (1467 kg/ha), cypermethrin 0.009 per cent (1420 kg/ha) and profenophos 0.05 per cent (1385 kg/ha). The highest cost benefit ratio was obtained in the treatment of cypermethrin 0.009 per cent (1:15.29) followed by profenophos 0.05 per cent (1:12.54).

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad 0.009 per cent reduced M. vitrata population.

Treatment
spinosad 0.009 per cente0
Interactor
Maruca vitrataMaruca vitratae1pest
Outcome
M. vitrata populatione0
Direction
reducinge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Maruca vitrata
Maruca vitrata · InteractorRavi Vaidyanathan · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spinosad 0.009 per cent, indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent, profenophos 0.05 per cent and cypermethrin 0.009 per cent were found to be most effective in reducing the M. vitrata population.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–415 · show in text ↑
e1

“Maruca vitrata (Geyer) infesting greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 92–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent reduced M. vitrata population.

Treatment
indoxacarb 0.0075 per cente0
Interactor
Maruca vitrataMaruca vitratae1pest
Outcome
M. vitrata populatione0
Direction
reducinge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Maruca vitrata
Maruca vitrata · InteractorRavi Vaidyanathan · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spinosad 0.009 per cent, indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent, profenophos 0.05 per cent and cypermethrin 0.009 per cent were found to be most effective in reducing the M. vitrata population.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–415 · show in text ↑
e1

“Maruca vitrata (Geyer) infesting greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 92–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenophos 0.05 per cent reduced M. vitrata population.

Treatment
profenophos 0.05 per cente0
Interactor
Maruca vitrataMaruca vitratae1pest
Outcome
M. vitrata populatione0
Direction
reducinge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Maruca vitrata
Maruca vitrata · InteractorRavi Vaidyanathan · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spinosad 0.009 per cent, indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent, profenophos 0.05 per cent and cypermethrin 0.009 per cent were found to be most effective in reducing the M. vitrata population.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–415 · show in text ↑
e1

“Maruca vitrata (Geyer) infesting greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 92–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cypermethrin 0.009 per cent reduced M. vitrata population.

Treatment
cypermethrin 0.009 per cente0
Interactor
Maruca vitrataMaruca vitratae1pest
Outcome
M. vitrata populatione0
Direction
reducinge0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Maruca vitrata
Maruca vitrata · InteractorRavi Vaidyanathan · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spinosad 0.009 per cent, indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent, profenophos 0.05 per cent and cypermethrin 0.009 per cent were found to be most effective in reducing the M. vitrata population.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 234–415 · show in text ↑
e1

“Maruca vitrata (Geyer) infesting greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 92–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indoxacarb gave the highest yield of 1516 kg/ha.

Treatment
indoxacarb 0.0075 per cente0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1516 kg/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest yield was recorded in the treatment indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent (1516 kg/ha) with minimum pod damage of 9.58 per cent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 416–544 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 125–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Indoxacarb had minimum pod damage of 9.58 per cent.

Treatment
indoxacarb 0.0075 per cente0
Interactor
Maruca vitrataMaruca vitratae1pest
Outcome
pod damagee0
Direction
minimume0
Value
9.58 per cente0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Maruca vitrata
Maruca vitrata · InteractorRavi Vaidyanathan · CC BY 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“indoxacarb 0.0075 per cent (1516 kg/ha) with minimum pod damage of 9.58 per cent”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 464–544 · show in text ↑
e1

“Maruca vitrata (Geyer) infesting greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 92–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinosad treatment yielded 1467 kg/ha.

Treatment
spinosad 0.009 per cente0
Outcome
kg/hae0
Value
1467 kg/hae0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“spinosad 0.009 per cent (1467 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 558–594 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 125–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cypermethrin treatment yielded 1420 kg/ha.

Treatment
cypermethrin 0.009 per cente0
Outcome
kg/hae0
Value
1420 kg/hae0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cypermethrin 0.009 per cent (1420 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 596–636 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 125–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenophos treatment yielded 1385 kg/ha.

Treatment
profenophos 0.05 per cente0
Outcome
kg/hae0
Value
1385 kg/hae0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“profenophos 0.05 per cent (1385 kg/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 641–679 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 125–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cypermethrin had the highest cost benefit ratio, 1:15.29.

Treatment
cypermethrin 0.009 per cente0
Outcome
cost benefit ratioe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1:15.29e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest cost benefit ratio was obtained in the treatment of cypermethrin 0.009 per cent (1:15.29)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 681–782 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 125–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Profenophos had a cost benefit ratio of 1:12.54.

Treatment
profenophos 0.05 per cente0
Outcome
1:12.54e0
Value
1:12.54e0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Vigna radiata var. radiata
Vigna radiata var. radiata · Taxon · picture of the speciesIvar Leidus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“profenophos 0.05 per cent (1:12.54)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 795–830 · show in text ↑
e1

“greengram”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 125–134 · show in text ↑

cypermethrin · Maruca vitrata · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

indoxacarb · Maruca vitrata · Vigna radiata (mung bean)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 →

cypermethrin · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)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 →

spinosad · Maruca vitrata · Vigna radiata (mung bean)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 →

indoxacarb · yield · Vigna radiata (mung bean)Results agree

8 papers: 8 positive, 0 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 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.