Paper · 2020 · Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies

Evaluation of IPM module for the management of sucking pest of cotton in Prakasam district

M Jahnavi; Prasada Rao Gmv; Rajesh Chowdary L

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The study on evaluation of IPM module for the management of sucking pest of cotton in Prakasam district was carried out during Kharif, 2018-19 in farmer’s fields of cotton growing tracts of Prakasam district. The experiment was carried out in 4.0 ha with active participation of farmers with an objective to assess the integrated management module for the management of sucking pest in cotton. In IPM module, reduced the incidence of leafhopper and thrips with in the range of 1.90 to 4.83 leaf hoppers / 3 leaves and 6.3 to 11.8 thrips/ 3 leaves, respectively over farmer practice (6.33 leaf hoppers /3 leaves and 13.2 thrips/3 leaves, respectively). IPM module recorded 6.31 q/ha (C:B ratio of 1: 0.5) which is 9.56 per cent higher than that obtained in farmers practice (5.25 q/ha with C:B ratio of 1:0.4).

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

IPM module reduced leafhopper incidence to 1.90 to 4.83 leafhoppers per 3 leaves compared with farmer practice

Treatment
IPM modulee1
Interactor
leafhoppere1pest
Outcome
incidence of leafhoppere1
Direction
reducede1
Value
1.90 to 4.83 leaf hoppers / 3 leavese1
Qualifier
6.33 leaf hoppers /3 leavese1
Comparator
farmer practicee1

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The study on evaluation of IPM module for the management of sucking pest of cotton in Prakasam district was carried out during Kharif, 2018-19”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–142 · show in text ↑
e1

“In IPM module, reduced the incidence of leafhopper and thrips with in the range of 1.90 to 4.83 leaf hoppers / 3 leaves and 6.3 to 11.8 thrips/ 3 leaves, respectively over farmer practice (6.33 leaf hoppers /3 leaves and 13.2 thrips/3 leaves, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 394–650 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM module reduced thrips incidence to 6.3 to 11.8 thrips per 3 leaves compared with farmer practice

Treatment
IPM modulee1
Interactor
thripsThripse1pest
Outcome
incidencee1
Direction
reducede1
Value
6.3 to 11.8 thrips/ 3 leavese1
Qualifier
13.2 thrips/3 leavese1
Comparator
farmer practicee1

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Thrips
Thrips · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Alton N. Sparks, Jr., University of Georgia, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The study on evaluation of IPM module for the management of sucking pest of cotton in Prakasam district was carried out during Kharif, 2018-19”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–142 · show in text ↑
e1

“In IPM module, reduced the incidence of leafhopper and thrips with in the range of 1.90 to 4.83 leaf hoppers / 3 leaves and 6.3 to 11.8 thrips/ 3 leaves, respectively over farmer practice (6.33 leaf hoppers /3 leaves and 13.2 thrips/3 leaves, respectively)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 394–650 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM module gave a cotton yield 9.56 per cent higher than farmer practice, 6.31 q/ha against 5.25 q/ha

Treatment
IPM modulee2
Outcome
q/hae2
Direction
highere2
Value
9.56 per cente2
Qualifier
6.31 q/ha (C:B ratio of 1: 0.5)e2
Comparator
farmers practicee2

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The study on evaluation of IPM module for the management of sucking pest of cotton in Prakasam district was carried out during Kharif, 2018-19”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–142 · show in text ↑
e2

“IPM module recorded 6.31 q/ha (C:B ratio of 1: 0.5) which is 9.56 per cent higher than that obtained in farmers practice (5.25 q/ha with C:B ratio of 1:0.4)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 652–808 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM module gave a cost-benefit ratio of 1: 0.5 in cotton

Treatment
IPM modulee2
Outcome
C:B ratioe2
Value
1: 0.5e2

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The study on evaluation of IPM module for the management of sucking pest of cotton in Prakasam district was carried out during Kharif, 2018-19”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–142 · show in text ↑
e2

“IPM module recorded 6.31 q/ha (C:B ratio of 1: 0.5) which is 9.56 per cent higher than that obtained in farmers practice (5.25 q/ha with C:B ratio of 1:0.4)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 652–808 · show in text ↑

ipm · Thrips · 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 →

ipm · disease · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

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.