Paper · 2017 · Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry

Field evaluation of biological compatibility of selected agrochemicals against cotton leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida)

Bontha Rajasekar; C. P. Mallapur

4
claims
14
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

A field trial was conducted to evaluate the bioefficacy of combinations of insecticides with fungicides / fertilizer / growth regulator, as foliar application on Bt cotton against cotton leafhopper. The lowest population of leafhopper was recorded in diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g + carbendazim 50 WP @ 1.0 g (2.87 / 3 leaves) followed by diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g alone (2.99 / 3 leaves) with 74.30, 73.21 high per cent reduction over control. Sequentially in the efficacy, treatments i.e., spinetoram 12 SC followed by acetamiprid 20 SP, nimbecidine, thiamethoxam 25 WG were alone and its combinations found effective in reducing the leafhopper population in 60 days cotton old crop.

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

Diafenthiuron plus carbendazim gave the lowest leafhopper population on Bt cotton (2.87 per three leaves).

Taxon
Bt cottone2
Treatment
diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g + carbendazim 50 WP @ 1.0 ge1
Interactor
Amrasca biguttula biguttulaAmrasca biguttula biguttulat1pest
Outcome
population of leafhoppere1
Direction
loweste1
Value
2.87 / 3 leavese1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e1

“The lowest population of leafhopper was recorded in diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g + carbendazim 50 WP @ 1.0 g (2.87 / 3 leaves)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–324 · show in text ↑
e2

“foliar application on Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–171 · show in text ↑
t1

“against cotton leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Diafenthiuron plus carbendazim gave a 74.30% per cent reduction in leafhopper population over control.

Taxon
Bt cottone2
Treatment
diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g + carbendazim 50 WP @ 1.0 ge1
Interactor
Amrasca biguttula biguttulaAmrasca biguttula biguttulat1pest
Outcome
per cent reductione3
Direction
highe3
Value
74.30e3
Comparator
controle3

Verbatim

e1

“The lowest population of leafhopper was recorded in diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g + carbendazim 50 WP @ 1.0 g (2.87 / 3 leaves)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 199–324 · show in text ↑
e2

“foliar application on Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–171 · show in text ↑
e3

“with 74.30, 73.21 high per cent reduction over control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 389–443 · show in text ↑
t1

“against cotton leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Diafenthiuron alone gave a 73.21% per cent reduction in leafhopper population over control.

Taxon
Bt cottone2
Treatment
diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g alonee4
Interactor
Amrasca biguttula biguttulaAmrasca biguttula biguttulat1pest
Outcome
per cent reductione3
Direction
highe3
Value
73.21e3
Comparator
controle3

Verbatim

e2

“foliar application on Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–171 · show in text ↑
e3

“with 74.30, 73.21 high per cent reduction over control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 389–443 · show in text ↑
e4

“followed by diafenthiuron 50 WP @ 0.6 g alone (2.99 / 3 leaves)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 325–388 · show in text ↑
t1

“against cotton leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–134 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spinetoram, acetamiprid, nimbecidine and thiamethoxam, alone or combined, were effective in reducing the leafhopper population on 60-day-old cotton.

Taxon
Bt cottone2
Treatment
spinetoram 12 SC followed by acetamiprid 20 SP, nimbecidine, thiamethoxam 25 WGe5
Interactor
Amrasca biguttula biguttulaAmrasca biguttula biguttulat1pest
Outcome
leafhopper populatione5
Direction
effective in reducinge5

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e2

“foliar application on Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 140–171 · show in text ↑
e5

“treatments i.e., spinetoram 12 SC followed by acetamiprid 20 SP, nimbecidine, thiamethoxam 25 WG were alone and its combinations found effective in reducing the leafhopper population”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 475–657 · show in text ↑
t1

“against cotton leafhopper, Amrasca biguttula biguttula (Ishida)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 71–134 · show in text ↑

acetamiprid · Amrasca biguttula biguttula · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

thiamethoxam · Amrasca biguttula biguttula · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

diafenthiuron · Amrasca biguttula biguttula · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

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.