Abstract
Cotton is the most important commercial crop of Telangana State with an area of 1.41 M ha., covering more than 95 per cent under Bt. Sucking pest infestation is the major biotic constraint responsible for considerable yield loss and high consumption of insecticide in cotton. As an alternative to chemical spray, stem application technology was assessed for the sucking pest management of cotton in the farmer's field of Karimnagar District for the five years starting from 2014–15. Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution was applied for three times at 20, 40 and 60 DAS. It was effectively controlled the sucking pests of cotton by reducing number of sprays and saved 74.95 per cent of insecticide (249.49 g.ai/ha). Cost saving of Rs. 3, 340/ha., coupled with 8.11 per cent increase in yield resulted in additional net returns of Rs. 7, 810/ha., over control. Obtained high B: C ratio of 1.86 compared to control (1.59). Over all cumulative monitory benefit of Rs. 6, 49, 300/-was realised in an area of 20.0 ha., over five years.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Stem application effectively controlled cotton sucking pests.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilutione0
- Interactor
- sucking pestse0pest
- Outcome
- sucking pests of cottone0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution was applied for three times at 20, 40 and 60 DAS. It was effectively controlled the sucking pests of cotton”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem application reduced insecticide sprays.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilutione1
- Outcome
- number of sprayse0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing number of sprays”
e1“Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem application saved 74.95 per cent of insecticide.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilutione1
- Outcome
- insecticidee0
- Direction
- savede0
- Value
- 74.95 per cente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“saved 74.95 per cent of insecticide (249.49 g.ai/ha)”
e1“Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem application saved Rs. 3, 340/ha in costs over control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilutione2
- Outcome
- Cost savinge0
- Direction
- savinge0
- Value
- Rs. 3, 340/hae0
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cost saving of Rs. 3, 340/ha.”
e1“over control”
e2“Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield increased 8.11 per cent over control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilutione2
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 8.11 per cente0
- Comparator
- controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“8.11 per cent increase in yield”
e1“over control”
e2“Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Additional net returns were Rs. 7, 810/ha over control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilutione1
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- additionale0
- Value
- Rs. 7, 810/hae0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“additional net returns of Rs. 7, 810/ha., over control”
e1“Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The benefit-cost ratio was 1.86 compared with 1.59 for control.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilutione1
- Outcome
- B: C ratioe0
- Direction
- highe0
- Value
- 1.86e0
- Qualifier
- 1.59e0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“high B: C ratio of 1.86 compared to control (1.59)”
e1“Imidacloprid (18.5 SL) solution @ 1: 20 dilution”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cumulative monetary benefit was Rs. 6, 49, 300/- across 20.0 ha over five years.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- cumulative monitory benefite0
- Value
- Rs. 6, 49, 300/-e0
- Qualifier
- in an area of 20.0 ha., over five yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over all cumulative monitory benefit of Rs. 6, 49, 300/-was realised in an area of 20.0 ha., over five years.”
t0“Cotton (Gossypium herbaceum L.)”
The same questions in other papers
imidacloprid · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
imidacloprid · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →imidacloprid · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
14 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 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.