Paper · 2019 · Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Field efficacy of different insecticides and bio-pesticides against okra shoot and fruit borer

Deepak Chandravanshi; Rks Tomar; AK Awasthi; et al.

4
claims
6
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The experiment was conducted during 2018-19 at BTC CARS, Bilaspur (IGKV), Chhattisgarh to evaluate the insecticides and bio-pesticides against okra shoot and fruit borer under field condition. Two insecticides viz. Cartap hydrochloride 4 G @ 1kg a.i./ha, Fipronil 0.3 G @ 60g a.i./ha and three bio-pesticides viz. Beauveria bassiana @ 10g/lit., Bacillus thuringiensis @ 2g/lit., Metarhizium anisopliae @ 10g/lit. Fipronil 0.3 G soil application after the germination followed by spray with Metarhizium anisopliae was found to be most effective against okra shoot and fruit borer, as it was recorded overall less fruit infestation percentage (8.30%). The maximum fruit damage (17.07%) was recorded in Cartap hydrochloride 4 G soil application after the germination. Fipronil 0.3 G soil application after the germination followed by spray with Metarhizium anisopliae was found most effective against okra shoot and fruit borer, as it was recorded overall less fruit infestation and highest fruit yield (89.89q/ha) with benefit cost ratio 1.38:1.00.

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

Fipronil followed by Metarhizium gave the lowest fruit infestation, 8.30%.

Treatment
Fipronil 0.3 G soil application after the germination followed by spray with Metarhizium anisopliaee0
Interactor
okra shoot and fruit borere0pest
Second interactor
Metarhizium anisopliaeMetarhizium anisopliaee0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
fruit infestation percentagee0
Direction
lesse0
Value
8.30%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Metarhizium anisopliae
Metarhizium anisopliae · Second interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryChengshu Wang and Yuxian Xia · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fipronil 0.3 G soil application after the germination followed by spray with Metarhizium anisopliae was found to be most effective against okra shoot and fruit borer, as it was recorded overall less fruit infestation percentage (8.30%).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 413–649 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cartap hydrochloride produced maximum fruit damage of 17.07%.

Treatment
Cartap hydrochloride 4 G soil application after the germinatione0
Interactor
okra shoot and fruit borert0pest
Outcome
fruit damagee0
Direction
maximume0
Value
17.07%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The maximum fruit damage (17.07%) was recorded in Cartap hydrochloride 4 G soil application after the germination.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 650–764 · show in text ↑
t0

“okra shoot and fruit borer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–94 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fipronil followed by Metarhizium gave highest fruit yield of 89.89 q/ha.

Treatment
Fipronil 0.3 G soil application after the germination followed by spray with Metarhizium anisopliaee0
Interactor
okra shoot and fruit borere0pest
Second interactor
Metarhizium anisopliaeMetarhizium anisopliaee0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
fruit yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Value
89.89q/hae0

Not reportedComparator

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Metarhizium anisopliae
Metarhizium anisopliae · Second interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryChengshu Wang and Yuxian Xia · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Fipronil 0.3 G soil application after the germination followed by spray with Metarhizium anisopliae was found most effective against okra shoot and fruit borer, as it was recorded overall less fruit infestation and highest fruit yield (89.89q/ha) with benefit cost ratio 1.38:1.00.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 765–1046 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fipronil followed by Metarhizium had benefit cost ratio 1.38:1.00.

Outcome
benefit cost ratioe0
Value
1.38:1.00e0

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

Abelmoschus esculentus
Abelmoschus esculentus · TaxonKristine Paulus from New York, United States · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“highest fruit yield (89.89q/ha) with benefit cost ratio 1.38:1.00.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 980–1046 · show in text ↑
t0

“okra”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–72 · show in text ↑

fipronil · pest · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

hydrochloride · pest · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Results agree

2 papers: 0 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
See all 2 papers →

cartap · pest · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Results agree

3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 papers →

Metarhizium anisopliae · pest · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)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 →

Metarhizium anisopliae · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)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 →

fipronil · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Results agree

7 papers: 7 positive, 0 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 papers →

application · pest · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results

26 papers: 22 positive, 4 negative or no effect

21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

22 papers more in this group

See all 26 papers →

application · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results

115 papers: 112 positive, 3 negative or no effect

111 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

111 papers more in this group

See all 115 papers →

8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.