Abstract
With the introduction of Bt cotton in India during 2002, the production and productivity has increased considerably with the reduction in bollworm complex incidences. But, sucking insect pests became a menace that warranted spraying of chemical insecticides. These insecticides belonging different groups, adversely affected the population of natural enemies like coccinellids that played a vital role in naturally keeping the sucking insect pest population under control. Field studies were conducted in 2 villages viz., Mambattu and Salai in Tamilnadu during the years 2014 and 2015. Five neonicotinoids viz., imidacloprid 17.8 SL, acetamiprid 20 SP, thiacloprid 21.7 SC, thiamethoxam 25 WDG and clothianidin 50 WDG were tested alongside monocrotophos 36 SL and untreated control. At 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment, monocrotophos recorded maximum population reduction of 78.8, 83.5, 70.4 and 62.6% respectively. Among neonicotinoids, clothionidin was found to be comparatively more toxic to coccinellids, followed by thiamethoxam and thiacloprid. Acetamiprid was found to be safest among chemical treatments with population reduction percentages of 45.6, 53.9, 36.5 and 24.7% respectively at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment followed by imidacloprid and thiacloprid. Two rounds of spray of neonicotinoids on Bt cotton had significant impact on the Coccinellids, when compared with untreated control plots. However, monocrotophos recorded relatively lowest population of coccinellids compared to untreated control and neonicotinoids. With significant population built-up after 7 days after acetamiprid and imidacloprid sprays, the 2 neonicotinoids may be suitable candidates for inclusion in integrated pest management of sucking insect pests in major Bt cotton growing areas as these insecticides are comparatively less toxic to predators as compared to broad spectrum neonicotinoids like thiacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin and non-selective insecticide like monocrotophos.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Monocrotophos caused the maximum coccinellid population reduction, 78.8, 83.5, 70.4 and 62.6% at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment.
- Taxon
- Bt cottont0
- Treatment
- monocrotophose1
- Interactor
- coccinellidst0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- population reductione1
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- 78.8, 83.5, 70.4 and 62.6%e1
- Qualifier
- At 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatmente1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton”
e1“At 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment, monocrotophos recorded maximum population reduction of 78.8, 83.5, 70.4 and 62.6% respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Among neonicotinoids, clothianidin was comparatively more toxic to coccinellids, followed by thiamethoxam and thiacloprid.
Verbatim
t0“predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton”
e1“Among neonicotinoids, clothionidin was found to be comparatively more toxic to coccinellids, followed by thiamethoxam and thiacloprid”
Claim · model-written summary
Acetamiprid was the safest chemical treatment for coccinellids, with population reductions of 45.6, 53.9, 36.5 and 24.7% at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment.
Verbatim
t0“predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton”
e1“Acetamiprid was found to be safest among chemical treatments with population reduction percentages of 45.6, 53.9, 36.5 and 24.7% respectively at 1, 3, 7 and 14 days after treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Two rounds of neonicotinoid sprays on Bt cotton had a significant impact on coccinellids compared with untreated control plots.
- Taxon
- Bt cottont0
- Treatment
- Two rounds of spray of neonicotinoidse1
- Interactor
- coccinellidst0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- impact on the Coccinellidse1
- Comparator
- untreated control plotse1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
t0“predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton”
e1“Two rounds of spray of neonicotinoids on Bt cotton had significant impact on the Coccinellids, when compared with untreated control plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Monocrotophos gave relatively the lowest coccinellid population compared with untreated control and neonicotinoids.
Verbatim
t0“predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton”
e1“monocrotophos recorded relatively lowest population of coccinellids compared to untreated control and neonicotinoids”
Claim · model-written summary
A significant coccinellid population build-up occurred after 7 days following acetamiprid and imidacloprid sprays.
- Taxon
- Bt cottont0
- Treatment
- acetamiprid and imidacloprid sprayse1
- Interactor
- coccinellidst0biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- populatione1
- Direction
- built-upe1
- Qualifier
- after 7 dayse1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“predatory coccinellids in Bt cotton”
e1“With significant population built-up after 7 days after acetamiprid and imidacloprid sprays”
Claim · model-written summary
Acetamiprid and imidacloprid may be suitable candidates for integrated pest management of sucking insect pests in Bt cotton areas because they are comparatively less toxic to predators.
Verbatim
e1“the 2 neonicotinoids may be suitable candidates for inclusion in integrated pest management of sucking insect pests in major Bt cotton growing areas”
The same questions in other papers
monocrotophos · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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 →acetamiprid · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
13 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →application · pest · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 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.