Abstract
The impact of non-pesticide farmer’s practice (Jind district, Haryana) adopted by a group of farmers on pestpopulation, natural enemies and yield parameters was studied and compared with Integrated Pest Management strategyand pesticide based farmers’ practice within same villages where this group has implemented their pest managementstrategy in Bt cotton. Comparison of population per three leaves of sucking pests (average of 3 years) indicated lowestpopulation of whitefly (adult), jassid and thrips (nymph and adult) in IPM module (7.18, 3.37 and 7.17) followedby NIFP, non-insecticidal farmer’s practice (7.70, 3.48 and 7.62) and FP, farmer’s practice (9.64, 4.14 and 9.69)respectively. While studying the interaction among sucking pest and natural enemies it was interesting to note thatthe population, in both the cases, increased gradually and after attaining the peak activity there was a declining trend.Socio-economic studies also supported the above results. In present study, the mean seed cotton yield during 2015,2016, 2017 in IPM fields was 13.75, 22.45 and 17.42 q/ha, in NIFP it was 14.20, 18.10 and 13.70 as against 8.85,16.75 and 9.30 q/ha in pesticide based farmers’ practice, respectively. The incremental benefit cost ratio in IPM fieldswas 2.87, 3.56, 3.81 and it was 4.09, 3.53, 3.66 in NIFP fields as against 1.60, 1.99, 1.82 in FP during 2015, 2016and 2017, respectively. It is evident that by adopting IPM strategy, sucking pests in Bt cotton can be successfullymanaged along with conservation of natural enemies with minimum application of insecticides.
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
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module had the lowest adult whitefly population (7.18) compared with farmers practice (FP).
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e0“indicated lowestpopulation of whitefly (adult), jassid and thrips (nymph and adult) in IPM module (7.18, 3.37 and 7.17) followed by NIFP, non-insecticidal farmer’s practice (7.70, 3.48 and 7.62) and FP, farmer’s practice (9.64, 4.14 and 9.69) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module had the lowest jassid population (3.37) compared with farmers practice (FP).
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e0“indicated lowestpopulation of whitefly (adult), jassid and thrips (nymph and adult) in IPM module (7.18, 3.37 and 7.17) followed by NIFP, non-insecticidal farmer’s practice (7.70, 3.48 and 7.62) and FP, farmer’s practice (9.64, 4.14 and 9.69) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The IPM module had the lowest thrips population (7.17) compared with farmers practice (FP).
- Taxon
- Bt cottont0
- Treatment
- IPM modulee0
- Outcome
- populatione0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Value
- 7.17e0
- Qualifier
- 9.69e0
- Comparator
- FPe0
ThripsOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e0“indicated lowestpopulation of whitefly (adult), jassid and thrips (nymph and adult) in IPM module (7.18, 3.37 and 7.17) followed by NIFP, non-insecticidal farmer’s practice (7.70, 3.48 and 7.62) and FP, farmer’s practice (9.64, 4.14 and 9.69) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The NIFP practice gave the next lowest whitefly population (7.70), following the IPM module.
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e0“indicated lowestpopulation of whitefly (adult), jassid and thrips (nymph and adult) in IPM module (7.18, 3.37 and 7.17) followed by NIFP, non-insecticidal farmer’s practice (7.70, 3.48 and 7.62) and FP, farmer’s practice (9.64, 4.14 and 9.69) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The NIFP practice gave the next lowest jassid population (3.48), following the IPM module.
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e0“indicated lowestpopulation of whitefly (adult), jassid and thrips (nymph and adult) in IPM module (7.18, 3.37 and 7.17) followed by NIFP, non-insecticidal farmer’s practice (7.70, 3.48 and 7.62) and FP, farmer’s practice (9.64, 4.14 and 9.69) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The NIFP practice gave the next lowest thrips population (7.62), following the IPM module.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e0“indicated lowestpopulation of whitefly (adult), jassid and thrips (nymph and adult) in IPM module (7.18, 3.37 and 7.17) followed by NIFP, non-insecticidal farmer’s practice (7.70, 3.48 and 7.62) and FP, farmer’s practice (9.64, 4.14 and 9.69) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Sucking pest and natural enemy populations increased gradually and then declined after the peak activity.
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e1“While studying the interaction among sucking pest and natural enemies it was interesting to note that the population, in both the cases, increased gradually and after attaining the peak activity there was a declining trend”
Claim · model-written summary
The incremental benefit cost ratio in IPM fields was higher than in FP fields.
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e3“The incremental benefit cost ratio in IPM fieldswas 2.87, 3.56, 3.81 and it was 4.09, 3.53, 3.66 in NIFP fields as against 1.60, 1.99, 1.82 in FP”
Claim · model-written summary
The incremental benefit cost ratio in NIFP fields was higher than in FP fields.
Verbatim
t0“Bt cotton”
e3“The incremental benefit cost ratio in IPM fieldswas 2.87, 3.56, 3.81 and it was 4.09, 3.53, 3.66 in NIFP fields as against 1.60, 1.99, 1.82 in FP”
Claim · model-written summary
Adopting IPM strategy allows sucking pests in Bt cotton to be successfully managed with conservation of natural enemies and minimum insecticide use.
Verbatim
e4“by adopting IPM strategy, sucking pests in Bt cotton can be successfullymanaged along with conservation of natural enemies with minimum application of insecticides”
The same questions in other papers
ipm · Thrips · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
ipm · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
22 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →ipm · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
38 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
35 papers more in this group
See all 39 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.