Paper · 2013 · INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PLANT PROTECTION

Efficacy of newer insecticides on sucking pests in Bt cotton under Khandesh region of Maharashtra.

D. V. Saner; G.B. Kabre; Y.A. Shinde

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The field studies on efficacy of newer insecticides on sucking pests in Bt cotton under in Khandesh region of Maharashtra, India showed that out of 9 treatments, all were significantly reduced by the test synthetic chemical insecticides in comparision with untreated control. Population of jassid, aphid, thrip was promisingly suppressed by thiamethoxam 25 WG, fipronil 80 WG, followed by fipronil 5 SC, acetamiprid 20 SP, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC, imidacloprid and triazophos. Population of whiteflies was effectively suppressed by thiamethoxam 25 WG, acetamiprid 20 SP, fipronil 80 WG followed by fipronil 5 SC, imidacloprid 70 WG, imidacloprid 17.80 SL, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC and triazophos 40 EC. The promising insecticides against mealy bugs were found to be acetamiprid 20 SP, thiamethoxam 25 WG, fipronil 80 WG, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC, triazophos 40 EC followed by imidacloprid 17.80 SL, fipronil 5 SC and imidacloprid 70 WG.

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 resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Test insecticides significantly reduced sucking pests relative to untreated control.

Taxon
Bt cottont0
Treatment
test synthetic chemical insecticidese0
Outcome
sucking pestst0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
untreated controle0

Verbatim

e0

“all were significantly reduced by the test synthetic chemical insecticides in comparision with untreated control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 162–274 · show in text ↑
t0

“sucking pests in Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–60 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiamethoxam and fipronil most promisingly suppressed jassid, aphid and thrip populations.

Taxon
Bt cottont0
Treatment
thiamethoxam 25 WG, fipronil 80 WGe0
Interactor
jasside0pest
Outcome
Population of jassid, aphid, thripe0
Direction
suppressede0
Comparator
fipronil 5 SC, acetamiprid 20 SP, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC, imidacloprid and triazophose0

Verbatim

e0

“Population of jassid, aphid, thrip was promisingly suppressed by thiamethoxam 25 WG, fipronil 80 WG, followed by fipronil 5 SC, acetamiprid 20 SP, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC, imidacloprid and triazophos”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 276–474 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–60 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiamethoxam, acetamiprid and fipronil most effectively suppressed whiteflies.

Taxon
Bt cottont0
Treatment
thiamethoxam 25 WG, acetamiprid 20 SP, fipronil 80 WGe0
Interactor
whitefliesAleyrodoideae0pest
Outcome
Population of whitefliese0
Direction
suppressede0
Comparator
fipronil 5 SC, imidacloprid 70 WG, imidacloprid 17.80 SL, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC and triazophos 40 ECe0

Verbatim

e0

“Population of whiteflies was effectively suppressed by thiamethoxam 25 WG, acetamiprid 20 SP, fipronil 80 WG followed by fipronil 5 SC, imidacloprid 70 WG, imidacloprid 17.80 SL, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC and triazophos 40 EC”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 476–698 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–60 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Acetamiprid, thiamethoxam, fipronil, lambda cyhalothrin and triazophos were most promising against mealy bugs.

Taxon
Bt cottont0
Treatment
acetamiprid 20 SP, thiamethoxam 25 WG, fipronil 80 WG, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC, triazophos 40 ECe0
Interactor
mealy bugsPseudococcidaee0pest
Outcome
promising insecticides against mealy bugse0
Direction
promisinge0
Comparator
imidacloprid 17.80 SL, fipronil 5 SC and imidacloprid 70 WGe0

Verbatim

e0

“The promising insecticides against mealy bugs were found to be acetamiprid 20 SP, thiamethoxam 25 WG, fipronil 80 WG, lambdacyhalothrin 5 SC, triazophos 40 EC followed by imidacloprid 17.80 SL, fipronil 5 SC and imidacloprid 70 WG”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 700–930 · show in text ↑
t0

“Bt cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–60 · show in text ↑

fipronil · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

10 papers: 9 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

thiamethoxam · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 13 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

acetamiprid · Aleyrodoidea · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

thiamethoxam · Aleyrodoidea · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

fipronil · Aleyrodoidea · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)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 →

insecticide · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ

76 papers: 51 positive, 25 negative or no effect

50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

72 papers more in this group

See all 76 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.