Paper · 2022 · International Journal of Plant & Soil Science

IPM – An Ecofriendly Approach to Manage the Pink Boll Worm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in Bt Cotton of Mancherial District, Telangana State

Nagaraju Alugoju; Rajeshwar Malavath; Shivakrishna Kota; et al.

6
claims
17
verbatim quotes
2
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A Front Line Demonstration (FLD) on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for the management of pink boll worm, Pectinophora gossipiella (Saunders) in Bt cotton has been conducted in different villages in various mandals of Mancherial district in Telangana state during Kharif (June – December) season of 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21, respectively to create awareness about the IPM practices among the farming community. The adoption of IPM practices like installation of pheromone traps at 45 DAS, removal & destruction of rosette flowers, spraying of Azadiractin 1500ppm and need-based application of selective insecticides etc. were carried out. The results revealed that the lowest per cent rosette flowers (6.63, 6.52 and 2.84) and green boll damage (5.71, 8.91 and 13.39) was recorded in IPM demonstrated plots over farmers practice (per cent rosette flowers (11.69, 8.51 & 13.39), green boll damage (8.57, 10.46 and 21.84) with increased yields of 7.83, 9.98 and 9.85 during corresponding Kharif (June – December), 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21. Further, the demonstration plots registered with higher cotton yield of 2079, 1785 and 1817 kg ha-1 as compared to 1928, 1623 and 1654 kg ha-1 under farmers practice. The Cost- Benefit ratio of 1.89, 1.90 and 1.80, respectively in the technology demonstrated plots whereas in farmers practice the recorded Cost - Benefit ratio of 1.55, 1.64 and 1.45 during corresponding Kharif (June – December), 2018–19, 2019–20 and 2020–21. Hence, need to popularize the IPM practices through FLD among the farming community to alleviate the gap between the improved technology and farmer’s practice.

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 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM demonstrated plots had the lowest per cent rosette flowers than farmers practice in each Kharif season.

Taxon
Bt Cottont0
Treatment
IPMe1
Interactor
Pectinophora gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellat0pest
Outcome
per cent rosette flowerse1
Direction
loweste1
Value
6.63, 6.52 and 2.84e1
Comparator
farmers practicee1
Setting
Mancherial district in Telangana statee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Pink Boll Worm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in Bt Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“A Front Line Demonstration (FLD) on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for the management of pink boll worm, Pectinophora gossipiella (Saunders) in Bt cotton has been conducted in different villages in various mandals of Mancherial district in Telangana state”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–267 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results revealed that the lowest per cent rosette flowers (6.63, 6.52 and 2.84) and green boll damage (5.71, 8.91 and 13.39) was recorded in IPM demonstrated plots over farmers practice (per cent rosette flowers (11.69, 8.51 & 13.39), green boll damage (8.57, 10.46 and 21.84) with increased yields of 7.83, 9.98 and 9.85”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–979 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM demonstrated plots had the lowest green boll damage than farmers practice in each Kharif season.

Taxon
Bt Cottont0
Treatment
IPMe1
Interactor
Pectinophora gossypiellaPectinophora gossypiellat0pest
Outcome
green boll damagee1
Direction
loweste1
Value
5.71, 8.91 and 13.39e1
Comparator
farmers practicee1
Setting
Mancherial district in Telangana statee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Pectinophora gossypiella
Pectinophora gossypiella · InteractorAlbertonatureza · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Pink Boll Worm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in Bt Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“A Front Line Demonstration (FLD) on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for the management of pink boll worm, Pectinophora gossipiella (Saunders) in Bt cotton has been conducted in different villages in various mandals of Mancherial district in Telangana state”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–267 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results revealed that the lowest per cent rosette flowers (6.63, 6.52 and 2.84) and green boll damage (5.71, 8.91 and 13.39) was recorded in IPM demonstrated plots over farmers practice (per cent rosette flowers (11.69, 8.51 & 13.39), green boll damage (8.57, 10.46 and 21.84) with increased yields of 7.83, 9.98 and 9.85”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–979 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IPM demonstrated plots increased yields in each Kharif season (7.83, 9.98 and 9.85).

Taxon
Bt Cottont0
Treatment
IPMe1
Outcome
yieldse1
Direction
increasede1
Value
7.83, 9.98 and 9.85e1
Setting
Mancherial district in Telangana statee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Pink Boll Worm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in Bt Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“A Front Line Demonstration (FLD) on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for the management of pink boll worm, Pectinophora gossipiella (Saunders) in Bt cotton has been conducted in different villages in various mandals of Mancherial district in Telangana state”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–267 · show in text ↑
e1

“The results revealed that the lowest per cent rosette flowers (6.63, 6.52 and 2.84) and green boll damage (5.71, 8.91 and 13.39) was recorded in IPM demonstrated plots over farmers practice (per cent rosette flowers (11.69, 8.51 & 13.39), green boll damage (8.57, 10.46 and 21.84) with increased yields of 7.83, 9.98 and 9.85”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–979 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Demonstration plots had higher cotton yield than farmers practice (2079, 1785 and 1817 kg ha-1 versus 1928, 1623 and 1654 kg ha-1).

Taxon
Bt Cottont0
Treatment
demonstration plotse2
Outcome
cotton yielde2
Direction
highere2
Value
2079, 1785 and 1817 kg ha-1e2
Comparator
farmers practicee2
Setting
Mancherial district in Telangana statee0

Verbatim

t0

“Pink Boll Worm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in Bt Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“A Front Line Demonstration (FLD) on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for the management of pink boll worm, Pectinophora gossipiella (Saunders) in Bt cotton has been conducted in different villages in various mandals of Mancherial district in Telangana state”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–267 · show in text ↑
e2

“Further, the demonstration plots registered with higher cotton yield of 2079, 1785 and 1817 kg ha-1 as compared to 1928, 1623 and 1654 kg ha-1 under farmers practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1057–1222 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The cost- benefit ratio was higher in IPM technology demonstrated plots than in farmers practice (1.89, 1.90 and 1.80 versus 1.55, 1.64 and 1.45).

Taxon
Bt Cottont0
Treatment
technology demonstrated plotse3
Outcome
Cost- Benefit ratioe3
Direction
higherinferrede3
Value
1.89, 1.90 and 1.80e3
Comparator
farmers practicee3
Setting
Mancherial district in Telangana statee0

Verbatim

t0

“Pink Boll Worm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in Bt Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“A Front Line Demonstration (FLD) on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices for the management of pink boll worm, Pectinophora gossipiella (Saunders) in Bt cotton has been conducted in different villages in various mandals of Mancherial district in Telangana state”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–267 · show in text ↑
e3

“The Cost- Benefit ratio of 1.89, 1.90 and 1.80, respectively in the technology demonstrated plots whereas in farmers practice the recorded Cost - Benefit ratio of 1.55, 1.64 and 1.45”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1224–1406 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend popularizing IPM practices through FLD among the farming community.

Taxon
Bt Cottont0
Treatment
IPM practices through FLDe4
Outcome
popularize the IPM practicese4

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“Pink Boll Worm (Pectinophora gossypiella) in Bt Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 44–98 · show in text ↑
e4

“need to popularize the IPM practices through FLD among the farming community”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1491–1567 · show in text ↑

ipm · Pectinophora gossypiella · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

5 papers: 5 positive, 0 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

ipm · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree

39 papers: 39 positive, 0 negative or no effect

38 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.