Paper · 2022 · Journal of King Saud University - Science

Use of botanical spray to delay application of first pesticide against sucking pests of cotton which ultimately mitigate climate change

Muhammad Yousaf Ali; Shahid Saleem; Muhammad Nasir; et al.

2
claims
8
verbatim quotes
6
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Cotton is a cash crop and its raw material is extremely important for use in textile industry. Pakistan comes in top exporter of cotton. Cotton crop is under different stresses during its production out of which pest pressure is most important to deal with. Rural Education & Economic Development Society (REEDS) Pakistan is working for production of better of cotton along with promotion of less pesticide use thus mitigating the environmental pollution. REEDS has established field study for use of neem extract as botanical spray against sucking pests and diseases. This experiment was done on farmer fields of Vehari and Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab and Dadu, Sindh. Botanical spray was used against sucking pests to delay the application of first pesticide for maximum number days. Which would ultimately reduce the number of pesticides applied along with less residual effects on humans and environment. The pest scouting data of trial plot clearly show the decrease in pest population after application of neem extract up to 79 days after sowing in comparison to control plot. Similarly, number of total pesticides used in trail plots were less in comparison to control plots.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neem extract botanical spray reduced the pest population in cotton up to 79 days after sowing compared with control plots.

Treatment
application of neem extracte1
Interactor
sucking pestse3pest
Outcome
pest populatione1
Direction
decreasee1
Qualifier
up to 79 days after sowinge1
Comparator
control plote1
Setting
farmer fields of Vehari and Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab and Dadu, Sindhe2

Not reportedValue

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

“Cotton is a cash crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–21 · show in text ↑
e1

“The pest scouting data of trial plot clearly show the decrease in pest population after application of neem extract up to 79 days after sowing in comparison to control plot”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 904–1076 · show in text ↑
e2

“This experiment was done on farmer fields of Vehari and Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab and Dadu, Sindh”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 569–663 · show in text ↑
e3

“Botanical spray was used against sucking pests”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 665–711 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton trial plots sprayed with neem extract used fewer total pesticides than control plots.

Treatment
neem extracte1
Outcome
number of total pesticides usede4
Direction
lesse4
Comparator
control plotse4
Setting
farmer fields of Vehari and Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab and Dadu, Sindhe2

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

“Cotton is a cash crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–21 · show in text ↑
e1

“application of neem extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 992–1019 · show in text ↑
e2

“This experiment was done on farmer fields of Vehari and Rahim Yar Khan, Punjab and Dadu, Sindh”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 569–663 · show in text ↑
e4

“number of total pesticides used in trail plots were less in comparison to control plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1089–1176 · show in text ↑

Azadirachta indica · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 7 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

botanical · molecular: metabolites · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

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

31 papers: 28 positive, 3 negative or no effect

27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

27 papers more in this group

See all 31 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.