Abstract
Cluster Frontline Demonstrations using IPM technologies were conducted on farmer fields’ during two consecutive years of both kharif (June-November 2017 and 2018) by Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kampasagar, Telangana State, India. The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1). The average gross returns, net returns, and benefit-cost ratios were higher in the demonstration plot as compared to the farmers’ practice. The average cost reduction was (Rs. 41402.0 ha-1) in the demonstration plot when compared to farmers’ practice (Rs. 46190.0 ha-1). Incidence of sucking pests and pink bollworm was low in demonstrations plots and adoption of IPM practices i.e. stem application in cotton at 30 and 45 days after sowing with Monocrotophos and water (1:4) ratio and 60 days after sowing with Imidacloprid and water (1:20) ratio minimize the sucking pests. Further erection of pheromone traps @ 10 ha-1 at 45 DAS to monitor pink bollworm population and spraying of need-based plant protection chemicals i.e. Azadirachtin 0.15% EC @ 2.5 l ha-1 and Thiodicarb 75% WP @ 1.5 g l-1 at early stages and Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @ 0.5 g l-1 at later stages effectively controlled pink bollworm. The average extension gap, technology gap, and technology index were 323.25 kg ha-1, 266.25 kg ha-1 and 10.65%, respectively. Hence, adoption of IPM technologies play a major role for controlling the pest complex and need arises to adopt and popularize this technology in the cotton farming to mitigate the wider extension gap between improved and farmers’ practices.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton yield in IPM cluster frontline demonstrations was 16.9% higher than in farmers practice.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutume0 - Treatment
- Cluster Frontline Demonstrations using IPM technologiese1
- Outcome
- cotton yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 16.9%e0
- Qualifier
- 1910.5 kg ha-1e0
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
- Setting
- farmer fieldse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e1“Cluster Frontline Demonstrations using IPM technologies were conducted on farmer fields”
Claim · model-written summary
Gross returns, net returns and benefit-cost ratios were higher in the IPM demonstration plots than in farmers practice.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- demonstration plote2
- Outcome
- gross returns, net returns, and benefit-cost ratiose2
- Direction
- highere2
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e2“The average gross returns, net returns, and benefit-cost ratios were higher in the demonstration plot”
Claim · model-written summary
The average cost in IPM demonstration plots was reduced by Rs. 41402.0 per ha relative to farmers practice.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- demonstration plote3
- Outcome
- coste3
- Direction
- reductione3
- Value
- Rs. 41402.0 ha-1e3
- Qualifier
- Rs. 46190.0 ha-1e4
- Comparator
- farmers practicee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e3“The average cost reduction was (Rs. 41402.0 ha-1) in the demonstration plot”
e4“Rs. 46190.0 ha-1”
Claim · model-written summary
Incidence of sucking pests was low in IPM demonstration plots.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- demonstrations plotse5
- Interactor
- sucking pestse5pest
- Outcome
- Incidence of sucking pestse5
- Direction
- lowe5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e5“Incidence of sucking pests and pink bollworm was low in demonstrations plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Incidence of pink bollworm was low in IPM demonstration plots.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- demonstrations plotse5
- Interactor
- pink bollworm
Pectinophora gossypiellae5pest - Outcome
- pink bollworme5
- Direction
- lowe5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e5“Incidence of sucking pests and pink bollworm was low in demonstrations plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem application with Monocrotophos at 30 and 45 days after sowing minimized sucking pests in cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- stem application in cotton at 30 and 45 days after sowing with Monocrotophos and water (1:4) ratioe6
- Interactor
- sucking pestse6pest
- Outcome
- the sucking pestse6
- Direction
- minimizee6
- Value
- 1:4e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e6“adoption of IPM practices i.e. stem application in cotton at 30 and 45 days after sowing with Monocrotophos and water (1:4) ratio and 60 days after sowing with Imidacloprid and water (1:20) ratio minimize the sucking pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Imidacloprid applied 60 days after sowing minimized sucking pests in cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- 60 days after sowing with Imidacloprid and water (1:20) ratioe6
- Interactor
- sucking pestse6pest
- Outcome
- the sucking pestse6
- Direction
- minimizee6
- Value
- 1:20e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e6“adoption of IPM practices i.e. stem application in cotton at 30 and 45 days after sowing with Monocrotophos and water (1:4) ratio and 60 days after sowing with Imidacloprid and water (1:20) ratio minimize the sucking pests”
Claim · model-written summary
Need-based spraying of plant protection chemicals effectively controlled pink bollworm in cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- spraying of need-based plant protection chemicalse7
- Interactor
- pink bollwormPectinophora gossypiellae7pest
- Outcome
- pink bollworme7
- Direction
- effectively controllede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e7“spraying of need-based plant protection chemicals i.e. Azadirachtin 0.15% EC @ 2.5 l ha-1 and Thiodicarb 75% WP @ 1.5 g l-1 at early stages and Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @ 0.5 g l-1 at later stages effectively controlled pink bollworm”
Claim · model-written summary
The average extension gap in cotton was 323.25 kg per ha.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- average extension gape4
- Value
- 323.25 kg ha-1e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e4“The average extension gap, technology gap, and technology index were 323.25 kg ha-1, 266.25 kg ha-1 and 10.65%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The average technology gap in cotton was 266.25 kg per ha.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- technology gape4
- Value
- 266.25 kg ha-1e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e4“The average extension gap, technology gap, and technology index were 323.25 kg ha-1, 266.25 kg ha-1 and 10.65%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The average technology index in cotton was 10.65%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- technology indexe4
- Value
- 10.65%e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e4“The average extension gap, technology gap, and technology index were 323.25 kg ha-1, 266.25 kg ha-1 and 10.65%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton farmers need to adopt and popularize IPM technology to narrow the extension gap.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Outcome
- adopt and popularize this technologye3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e3“need arises to adopt and popularize this technology in the cotton farming”
Claim · model-written summary
Adoption of IPM technologies plays a major role in controlling the pest complex in cotton.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutume0
- Treatment
- adoption of IPM technologiese5
- Outcome
- controlling the pest complexe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results revealed that, 16.9% increased cotton yield was observed in demonstration plot (2234.0 kg ha-1) against farmers practice (1910.5 kg ha-1)”
e5“adoption of IPM technologies play a major role for controlling the pest complex”
The same questions in other papers
monocrotophos · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →imidacloprid · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →cluster · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
application · Pectinophora gossypiella · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.