Paper · 2018 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Relative Abundance of Insect Pests and Pod Damage by Pod Borers in Short duration Pigeonpea under Intercropping Systems

R. Shravan Kumar; Paras Nath; S.V.S. Raju

10
claims
21
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

A research work to study the richness of arthropod diversity under short duration pigeonpea intercropping systems was carried out at Agricultural Research Farm of Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (UP). The faunal composition of insect pests associated with short duration pigeonpea intercropping systems in kharif 2004 and 2005 was of eight orders viz., Orthoptera, Homoptera, Thysanoptera, Lepidoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera and Coleoptera. One bird pest of order Psittaciformes was also recorded. The twenty species of insect pests and one bird pest species were recorded infesting short duration pigeonpea under intercropping systems. The insect pests observed at vegetative and reproductive stages of the crop growth were green jassid, tur pod bug, green stink bug, gram pod borer and blue butterfly. The remaining insect pests were active either at vegetative or reproductive stage of the crop. The rose ringed parakeet was observed feeding pods at reproductive stage of crop growth. The relative abundance in the pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) treatment plot was highest in case of flower thrips (M. usitatus) and lowest in case of green stink bug. In sole crop of pigeonpea higher relative abundance was recorded by scale insects and lower by leaf cutter bees. Among all insect pests and in all treatments flower thrips had highest relative abundance and green stink bug had recorded lowest relative abundance during both the years of experimentation. The relative abundance of insect pests was very much low in pigeonpea + sorghum and highest in sole crop of pigeonpea. The average of two years data on the extent of pod damage by gram pod borer showed that pod damage (%) was more in sole crop of pigeonpea (T7) while less in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1). The data on pod damage (%) by tur pod fly recorded during both the years was pooled to know the overall effect of intercropping on pod damage (%) and it was found that pod damage (%) was significantly reduced in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) than in other treatments. Seed damage (%) due to gram pod borer and pod fly was more in pigeonpea grown alone while it was less in the intercrops pigeonpea + sorghum (T1).

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Twenty insect pest species and one bird pest species were recorded infesting short duration pigeonpea under intercropping systems.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Interactor
insect pestse1pest
Outcome
recorded infestinge1
Value
twenty speciese1

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e1

“The twenty species of insect pests and one bird pest species were recorded infesting short duration pigeonpea under intercropping systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–637 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flower thrips had the highest relative abundance in the pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) plot.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)e2
Interactor
flower thrips (M. usitatus)e2pest
Outcome
relative abundancee2
Direction
higheste2

Not reportedComparator

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e2

“The relative abundance in the pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) treatment plot was highest in case of flower thrips (M. usitatus) and lowest in case of green stink bug”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 990–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Green stink bug had the lowest relative abundance in the pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) plot.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)e2
Interactor
green stink buge2pest
Outcome
relative abundancee2
Direction
loweste2

Not reportedComparator

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e2

“The relative abundance in the pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) treatment plot was highest in case of flower thrips (M. usitatus) and lowest in case of green stink bug”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 990–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Scale insects had a higher relative abundance in sole pigeonpea than in intercropping.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
sole crop of pigeonpeae3
Interactor
scale insectsCoccoideae3pest
Outcome
relative abundancee3
Direction
highere3

Not reportedComparator

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e3

“In sole crop of pigeonpea higher relative abundance was recorded by scale insects and lower by leaf cutter bees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1150–1261 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf cutter bees had a lower relative abundance in sole pigeonpea than in intercropping.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
sole crop of pigeonpeae3
Interactor
leaf cutter beesMegachilidaee3pest
Outcome
relative abundancee3
Direction
lowere3

Not reportedComparator

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e3

“In sole crop of pigeonpea higher relative abundance was recorded by scale insects and lower by leaf cutter bees”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1150–1261 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pod damage by gram pod borer was higher in sole pigeonpea (T7) than in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1).

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
sole crop of pigeonpea (T7)e4
Interactor
gram pod borere4pest
Outcome
pod damage (%)e4
Direction
moree4
Comparator
pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)e4

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e4

“pod damage by gram pod borer showed that pod damage (%) was more in sole crop of pigeonpea (T7) while less in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1620–1754 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pod damage by gram pod borer was lower in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) than in sole pigeonpea (T7).

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)e4
Interactor
gram pod borere4pest
Outcome
pod damage (%)e4
Direction
lesse4
Comparator
sole crop of pigeonpea (T7)e4

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e4

“pod damage by gram pod borer showed that pod damage (%) was more in sole crop of pigeonpea (T7) while less in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1620–1754 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Pod damage by tur pod fly was significantly reduced in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) compared with other treatments.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)e6
Interactor
tur pod flye5pest
Outcome
pod damage (%)e6
Direction
reducede6
Comparator
other treatmentse6

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e5

“The data on pod damage (%) by tur pod fly recorded during both the years was pooled”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1756–1839 · show in text ↑
e6

“pod damage (%) was significantly reduced in pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) than in other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1924–2017 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed damage by gram pod borer and pod fly was higher in pigeonpea grown alone than in the pigeonpea + sorghum (T1) intercrop.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
pigeonpea grown alonee7
Interactor
gram pod borere7pest
Second interactor
pod flye7pest
Outcome
Seed damage (%)e7
Direction
moree7
Comparator
pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)e7

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e7

“Seed damage (%) due to gram pod borer and pod fly was more in pigeonpea grown alone while it was less in the intercrops pigeonpea + sorghum (T1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2019–2163 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The relative abundance of insect pests was very much lower in pigeonpea + sorghum than in sole pigeonpea.

Taxon
PigeonpeaCajanus cajant0
Treatment
pigeonpea + sorghume1
Interactor
insect pestse1pest
Outcome
relative abundance of insect pestse1
Direction
very much lowe1
Comparator
sole crop of pigeonpeae1

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

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Short duration Pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–91 · show in text ↑
e1

“The relative abundance of insect pests was very much low in pigeonpea + sorghum and highest in sole crop of pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1454–1571 · show in text ↑

Sorghum · pest · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

intercropping · pest · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Results differ

13 papers: 10 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.